Posted on 01/04/2006 12:55:35 PM PST by A. Pole
Will the federal courts, and the people who rely on the federal courts to enforce secular ideals, ever get it? The anti-school-prayer decisions of the past 40 years—not unlike the pro-choice-in-abortion decisions, starting with Roe vs. Wade—haven’t driven pro-school-prayer, anti-choice Americans from the marketplace of ideas and activity.
Neither will U.S. Dist. Judge John Jones’ anti-intelligent-design ruling in Dover, Pa., just before Christmas choke off challenges to the public schools’ Darwinian monopoly.
Jones’ contempt for the “breathtaking inanity” of school-board members who wanted ninth-grade biology students to hear a brief statement regarding Darwinism’s “gaps/problems” is unlikely to intimidate the millions who find evolution only partly persuasive—at best.
Millions? Scores of millions might be more like it. A 2004 Gallup Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in evolution unaided by God. A Kansas newspaper poll last summer found 55 percent support for exposing public-school students to critiques of Darwinism.
This accounts for the widespread desire that children be able to factor in some alternatives to the notion that “natural selection” has brought us, humanly speaking, where we are. Well, maybe it has. But what if it hasn’t? The science classroom can’t take cognizance of such a possibility? Under the Jones ruling, it can’t. Jones discerns a plot to establish a religious view of the question, though the religion he worries about exists only in the possibility that God, per Genesis 1, might intrude celestially into the discussion. (Intelligent-designers, for the record, say the power of a Creator God is just one of various possible counter-explanations.)
Not that Darwinism, as Jones acknowledges, is perfect. Still, “the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent scientific propositions.”
Ah. We see now: Federal judges are the final word on good science. Who gave them the power to exclude even whispers of divinity from the classroom? Supposedly, the First Amendment to the Constitution: the odd part here being the assumption that the “free speech” amendment shuts down discussion of alternatives to an establishment-approved concept of Truth.
With energy and undisguised contempt for the critics of Darwinism, Jones thrusts out the back door of his courthouse the very possibility that any sustained critique of Darwinism should be admitted to public classrooms.
However, the writ of almighty federal judges runs only so far, as witness their ongoing failure to convince Americans that the Constitution requires almost unobstructed access to abortion. Pro-life voters and activists, who number in the millions, clearly aren’t buying it. We’re to suppose efforts to smother intelligent design will bear larger, lusher fruit?
The meeting place of faith and reason is proverbially darkish and unstable—a place to which the discussants bring sometimes violently different assumptions about truth and where to find it. Yet, the recent remarks of the philosopher-theologian Michael Novak make great sense: “I don’t understand why in the public schools we cannot have a day or two of discussion about the relative roles of science and religion.” A discussion isn’t a sermon or an altar call, is it?
Equally to the point, what does secular intolerance achieve in terms of revitalizing public schools, rendering them intellectually catalytic? As many religious folk see it, witch-hunts for Christian influences are an engrained part of present public-school curricula. Is this where they want the kids? Might private schools—not necessarily religious ones—offer a better alternative? Might home schooling?
Alienating bright, energized, intellectually alert customers is normally accounted bad business, but that’s the direction in which Darwinian dogmatists point. Thanks to them and other such foes of free speech in the science classroom—federal judges included—we seem likely to hear less and less about survival of the fittest and more and more about survival of the least curious, the least motivated, the most gullible.
Well, I'm all for teaching competing theories in a science class. But ID is not a competing theory, it's a competing philosophy (theory having a specific technical meaning in science). On that basis, it should be taught in a philosophy class, not a science class, and neither this court decision nor any other on the topic have ever forbidden that.
Heavens, we don't want the little darlings not to just swallow what they are being told.
I'm all for teaching kids how to think. But to tell them that philosophy is science is lying to them, and I don't think that's what the schools are for.
LOL You just keep proving my point for me over and over and over. . .
Because ID is not science. The ideas it presents are not scientific, i.e.: testable, falsifiable.
Who said anything about teaching God in the classroom? I'm merely asking what is so worrisome about telling kids that there are competing ideas? No one is even teaching those competing ideas. What is so scarey about that?
No problem about discussing competing scientific ideas. Know of any?
I see, so in your view, the purpose of schools is to teach children to blindly accept what they are told. Got it.
No, the purpose of public school science classes are to teach about science, not metaphysics.
I've answered your questions. Please answer mine.
Why do you want this mentioned in science class? Why not philosophy or sociology?
Intelligent Design Gains Momentum, Raises Eyebrows on Campuses
From the article:
The [IDEA] group's advisory board includes Michael Behe and William Dembski, fellows at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a think tank that is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. Luskin himself recently started working at the institute as a program officer concerned with public policy and legal affairs. Still, he stressed that the IDEA Center remains independent and receives no funding from the institute.
But Victor Hutchison, professor emeritus of zoology at the University of Oklahoma, who attended some IDEA club meetings on his campus, said he could not separate the clubs from the broader intelligent design movement, spearheaded by the Discovery Institute.
"I find that they are espousing exactly the talking points of the creationist Discovery Institute," said Hutchison, who described himself as "an evolutionist" and "a person of faith."
The way Hutchison sees it, the clubs fit into what he calls Discovery's larger plan "to attack evolution and replace it with their religious viewpoint of creationism," or the biblical story of creation, and eventually "establish a theocracy."
The IDEA Center says intelligent design is a scientific concept, not a religious one. But students came to the meetings with their Bibles, Hutchison said.
The IDEA Center also requires its club presidents to be Christian. Luskin explained that as a Christian group, "we wanted to be totally open about who we thought the designer was." But, he added, "this belief about the identity of the designer is our religious belief; it's not a part of ID theory."
Hutchison nevertheless sees the requirement as a contradiction. "It just proves they are lying when they say it's not religious-based," he said.
For Hutchison, the campus IDEA club could be a land mine. Recently a faculty member tried to "sneak in a course on intelligent design" by e-mailing IDEA club members to generate support, Hutchison said. After opposition from other faculty, the teacher backed down, he said.
"And when, pray tell, do you date the Catholic Church's acceptance of science?"
There is no such firm date. Sure, the Catholic church accepted science when scientific conclusions supported Catholic doctrines, but it wasn't until the power of the RCC was sufficiently broken by the Reformation and Enlightenment that it was forced to accept that science was valid even when scientific conclusions undermined Catholic doctrine.
Science, as we know it, came about through a gradual progression of thought. The likes of Plato and Aristotle used deductive and inductive reasoning, but over time, empiricism gained hold, and one can say that empiricism is one of the cornerstones of modern science.
The earliest documentation of empiricism that I could find is from the works of the Egyptian Ibn al Haythen (965-1040, also called Alhazen) who published a book called "Optics" in which he used experimentation to refute Plato's theory of refraction.
I could go on, but I'm already belaboring the point.
"Coperincus studied at the Jagellonian University, founded and run by devout Catholics. Galileo studied at the University of Pisa, which had a similar story."
Yes, and this proves that the RCC invented science how?
Martin Luther studied at the Universities of Erfurt and Wittenberg and was also a monk and a priest, so does that mean that the Catholic church invented Lutheranism?
"Copernicus was never persecuted by the Church. Galileo was only persecuted because he was pontificating on the theological implications of the Copernican system. He was never persecuted because of his science. In fact, the Church never persecuted anyone for doing science. I defy you to name one person who was. No, Galileo does not qualify, for the reasons mentioned above."
Copernicus wasn't persecuted because it's rather ineffectual to persecute a corpse--the first publishing of his works wasn't completed until after his death. And before that, he was very selective with whom he shared his ideas.
As for Galileo, one need only read the Inquisition's indictment and adjuration against him to debunk the claim that he wasn't persecuted because of his science. It explicitly includes the charge that his heliocentric hypothesis is absurd, false, heretical, and contrary to Holy Scriptures. So sorry, but Galileo is an excellent example (though I admit he wasn't burned at the stake).
Why? By stating that ID is not a scientific theory, but a non-scientific philosophy? I personally haven't seen any evidence to convince me that ID is a scientific theory. Perhaps you could point me to a web site that would help.
Do you think that a non-scientific philosophy should be taught in science class?
Do you think that all competing theories for all scientific topics should be taught in science class if one of them is accepted by 98% of all scientists?
"You treat science as some nebulous mythical entity."
No, I don't. I treat science as something that gradually EVOLVED from earlier philosophies. Yes, the Catholic church did have an input into the development of science, but it did NOT invent nor create it.
"Western science with its rules, organization, hierarchy (doctors, professors, corporations) and practice was created in the Middle Ages by the Roman Catholic Church along with the development of scholasticism and network of universities which were given charters and funding."
You forgot to mention that through the translation of Arabic works into Latin, the RCC inherited much of the Islamic science as well as that of the Greeks before them (since they did a much better job of preserving the works of, for example, Hippocrates, and it by through Arabic translation of those Greek works that our Western world inherited that knowledge).
"Science did not jump out of the head of Zeus..."
Thank you for agreeing with me.
"...and was not even the continuation of Platonic Academy or Pythagorean secret societies."
There I beg to differ. Science grew out the these. Would it have developed without the likes of Plato or Pythagorus? Yes, because someone else would have come along, but that doesn't change the fact that modern science is a distant decendent of the philosophies of these intellectuals.
"Your anti-Christians bias blinds you to the historical fact."
You know nothing about me or my bias. In fact, you're completely wrong in your assumption, and it's also irrelevant to this discussion.
"America grew and prospered when the religion was present in schools."
Last time I checked, America was still growing and prospering even though religion is not present in public schools.
"Do you think that exposing your "(hypothetical) children" to mention of God or Creationism will be more harmful than training them by homosexual activist in virtues of diverse life styles?"
Why is it that certain people invariably muddy the water by bringing up irrelevant issues?
I happen to have two very real and precious children, and frankly I'm more worried about heterosexual teachers (you do realize that heterosexual teachers can and do molest students in their care, don't you?).
As for exposing my children to concepts such as creationism and homosexuality, neither will "harm" them unless I abdicate my responsibility as a parent.
I have no resources or special interest in doing such large research project. Even if I had the most likely others would come with such result before me. :(
As it stands, neo-lamarkism has been refuted, soundly.
Lysenko tried to force biology into simplistic version of dialectical materialism. But you can have different mechanisms of inheriting the acquired traits. For example:
The genes switched on or off in parents could stay the same way in children (the transfer of switch configuration can be done through the cell process outside of DNA or in case of mammals during the pregnancy).
Information could be written back into genotype, making it permanent. Such writting could be functional and not random.
Genetic information can be shared between species or individuals using some transfer akin to retroviruses.
There are can me mechanisms of cellular memory independent from genes. There are could be some other mechanism which do not come into my mind now.
Contrary to you I do not think that these questions are closed and that the great surprises are no more possible. Well, you will be more surprised than me :)
BTW, some type of neo-lamarkist mechanisms could explain how evolution could accomplish so much.
Can you supply some documentation for this? I have not seen this before.
That was before the 1960s Liberals and their Creationist soulmates thought it was cute to distrupt classes on a regular basis.
I calculated it myself: if the average number of lettuce heads per member of a team (two cutters and one packer) is 200 per hour, then $10 pay raise will increase the cost by five cents ($10 /200).
I calculated it myself: if the average number of lettuce heads per member of a team (two cutters and one packer) is 200 per hour, then $10 pay raise will increase the cost by five cents ($10 /200).
I suggest you sit down and do the math again. There is a whole lot that you have left out. Just a hint, and this is only a small part of what is missing. Payroll taxes will take up about 20% of any payroll. Increase the payroll $10.00 you increase the taxes at least $2.00, so you are up to $12.00.
And this is not even considering competing with Mexican imports.
OK, so it will be six cents :)
And this is not even considering competing with Mexican imports.
That is why we should have tariffs. Keeping the price of lettuce 6 cents lower does not compensate for bringing American wages to the Mexican level.
Retroviruses don't exchange genetic material from other individuals into their host. It's the host's genetic material that is altered, not the viruses.
This is the evidence that it is possible to move information from outside of DNA into DNA. And if it is possible then it can be done by something else than retrovirus. It is enough that such process took place very rarely with the frequency comparable to the mutation to change completely the dynamics of evolution.
Such reverse update could be nonrandom and controlled. Then the use of DNA would not be unidirectional read only thing modifiable only by random errors but would be more like library where the librarians and users can update and modify the content. Would it not be more efficient and faster? Why would the unidirectionality be preserved over billions life just to satisfy the DNA paradigm of the second half of XX century?
Another little example - the bacterias can adopt faster to the hostile environment (like antibiotics) by SHARING the genetic information even between the species.
The only cell we inherit is the egg cell from our mother. What process is there for this *memory*?
Egg cell is very alive and HUGE compared to the DNA. It is a hole through which a proverbial track can be driven through. And you have forgotten that spermatozoid also is a living cell with living and very active protoplasm.
You see, DNA is never really in charge and never on its one - it is always handled in a organized manner by the surrounding living cells. If they can read what they want, very likely they have capacity for occasional write in or switch on/off.
The room for radical revision of Newtonian physics was even smaller. But it did happen.
It is far less frequent than the mutation rate.
Things tend to be "less frequent" when we do not look for them.
There is still no proposed mechanism [...]
That something is not proposed does not mean that it is not there. Actually I think that number of things we do not know and we do not imagine or propose is much larger. The world is a wonderful wast place.
Any directed variation would have to be able to see into the future to anticipate the next move the environment was going to take.
Why do you expect the directed variations to be obliged to see the future? Random mutations/selected models reacts slowly to the present changes. Directed variations would need to the same.
The only part of the sperm that is combined into the egg is the DNA.
I doubt that such research (excluding any interraction between spermoplasma and egg) was done. But even so, the DNA modifications or switches could be done before combination.
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.