Calif. School Scraps 'Intelligent Design' [El Tejon litigation]

The Dispatch (Lexington, N.C.) ^ | 17 January 2006 | JULIANA BARBASSA

[highball]

I just don't get exactly what you mean by "political agenda" that ID people have. How do you think politics is involved?

ID was created not to provide better science education, but to put a version of Christianity in the classroom. That was the stated purpose behind it originally, and it was the admitted purpose of the Dover school board (although they perjured themselves in an attempt to deny this).

And that's the difference.

ID was created to further a political goal, and the Theory of Evolution was formulated as a response to the physical evidence.

Now do you understand the distinction?

[mlc9852]

It doesn't sound like a political goal at all. Maybe a religious goal.

[metmom]

The only part of your parody that was in post 190 was... Listen up class once upon a time...

The rest was your own. At that time you could have qualified that it was the leadership, but you didn't. You clearly chose to mock creationists as a whole by not making that obvious from the start. It wasn't till anyone objected that you changed what your story.

[highball]

It doesn't sound like a political goal at all. Maybe a religious goal.

Please. That's absurd on its face.

If it involves the public schools, if it involves people in public office, if it involves public policy, it's a political goal.

[mlc9852]

Well, where I live politics very rarely get injected to the education system. From what I've heard here (from my kids), they teach evolution and creationism and nobody has complained. Of course, I live in a red state.

[edsheppa]

To answer the question, "What does human consciousness have to do with evolution?"

That may be a question, but it is not the one you asked. You said this

5. Do you have any evidence supporting the belief that human consciousness (also known as the soul) does not survive the death of the body?
...
To number five, the honest answer is "No."

to which I responded

The honest rejoinder is, what does that have to do with evolution?

I'll try to be clear. Supposing we discover that our conscious awareness survives the death of the body, I doubt evolution will ever give an account for it.

However, it is an independent question whether or not evolution might give an account of the development of human consciousness.

On the surface, [human consciousness] would seem a competitive disadvantage, i.e. unnecessary overhead.

On the contrary, I think the value of awareness and self awareness are pretty clear; they bring the computing capacity of the brain to bear on some particular thing including, in the case of humans and a few other species, themselves. Being aware of oneself in relation to others seems pretty handy for social beings such as we.

[highball]

Well, where I live politics very rarely get injected to the education system.

Bully for you. You obviously don't have corrupt school board members like the ones Dover just tossed out on their ear.

Nevertheless, you cannot deny that ID was created specifically to pursue a political agenda, and that the Theory of Evolution was created in response to the evidence.

You're the one who started this "polical agenda" talk in your post #134. If you want to run away from that subject now, I can't say as I blame you.

[mlc9852]

I never run away. I just don't see it the same as you. I will agree to disagree.

[edsheppa]

If evolution drives species apart in qualities, then why are evolutionits so focused on the similarities of the species as proof for common descent?

Because common descent is a key claim of evolution and similarities, especially certain genetic similarities, forming a tree-like structure are evidence for it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The only part of your parody that was in post 190 was... Listen up class once upon a time..."

I didn't post 190. I posted 192. The entire post was a take on the original post's *once upon a time* theme. I am sorry you are unable to understand that. Next time I will post a little disclaimer, just for you. :)

"At that time you could have qualified that it was the leadership, but you didn't. You clearly chose to mock creationists as a whole by not making that obvious from the start. It wasn't till anyone objected that you changed what your story."

And you had to lie in post 293 saying I was smearing all creationists as being anti-science when I had already qualified my point to include only the creationist leadership. Your continued inability to read what I said does not say much about your literacy. Or your integrity.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's not about *qualifications*; it's about logical arguments.

Oh really? By what logic do you and your massive array of like-opinionated scientists deduce that God is outside the purview of science?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Ad hoc is as ad hoc does.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"By what logic do you and your massive array of like-opinionated scientists deduce that God is outside the purview of science?"

Because *God* is not testable or observable, or capable of yielding Himself to scientific tests. Most theologians also agree, and find the need of a minority of theists to make God a subject of scientific inquiry to be wrongheaded at best, and blasphemous at worst.

[Stark_GOP]

"Won't be too far down this road where mere possession of a Bible at a school will fall under the same category as a firearm..."
---
Our brave new world is already upon us.
I have previously posted a news article were a teacher throws the Bibles of two students in the school office trash can.
I have also heard of students who dare wear a shirt with a Bible quote on it being ordered to turn the offending shirt inside-out.
If you have a Bible with you, you are considered armed and dangerous.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Because *God* is not testable or observable, or capable of yielding Himself to scientific tests.

Sort of like saying, "God is beyond the purview of science because he is beyond the purview of science." Yes, I see how you've got all the logic tied up there. How can you and your vast array of like-minded scientists say God is beyond the purview of science when you haven't done any work to deduce as much but only assume it? What makes you qualified to make such an assumption? Furthermore, what makes you qualified to speak on behalf of all scientific endeavor?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sort of like saying, "God is beyond the purview of science because he is beyond the purview of science."

No, but it's exactly like saying that *God* is not a testable, observable claim. It's not a scientific question, as almost all but the tiniest minority of scientists and theologians agree. The burden is on you and your tiny minority of misfit scientists and theologians to show how God is testable and amenable to scientific study.

"What makes you qualified to make such an assumption?"

Again, as you are having a difficult time understanding this, it has NOTHING to with *qualifications*, it's about the logic of the argument. There is no such thing as Godometer; *God* isn't a part of science.

[highball]

Fester, since you want to make the case that God is within the purview of science, I think it is incumbent upon you to prove it.

Show how an objective observer may objectively measure God, without invoking belief.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Fester, since you want to make the case that God is within the purview of science

The proper way to treat the question is as if God may or may not be within the purview of science. Science is not qualified to make a judgement in the matter. By saying "God is not within the purview of science," one has already made a judgment that science cannot make. That judgment is one of opinion and has little to do with facts or logic.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . it has NOTHING to with *qualifications* . . .

If you do not think one ought to be qualified in order to speak to what science may or may not address, then I guess you don't mind after all who teaches science, or even what they teach. After all, it has nothing to do with "qualifications."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you do not think one ought to be qualified in order to speak to what science may or may not address, then I guess you don't mind after all who teaches science, or even what they teach."

You are wallowing in a logical fallacy. *Qualifications* are irrelevant; what is important is the argument and the evidence for that argument.

You keep ducking from the question of how *God* is supposed to be detected and studied. Please show us your Godometer.