Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[Stultis]

I have the ability to chose good or bad, but I don't have the ability to decide which is which. That depends entirely upon Divine decree.

Not according to the Bible:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:22)

[Stultis]

And I note that such Southerners never seem to be offended by transubstantiation or the aboriginal dreamtime or the Greek Orthodox "miracle of the holy fire." Those beliefs are accorded full respect. Genesis alone is attacked because Genesis is "the redneck book."

You're overwhelmed with paranoia. I assure that if "aboriginal dreamtime" were construed as suggesting a chronology and sequence of earth history that contradicted the meticulously accumulated knowledge of professional geology, and if some group insisted that "dreamtime" science be included in textbooks and curricula as an "alternative" to conventional geology, the reaction would be EXACTLY the same.

[microgood]

The wide gap between established facts accepted by scientists and the sentiments sampled in the polls reflects a failure of science education.

Not at all. The fact that only 38% of the population believes in evolutions lines up perfect with certainty values. What science calls an established fact is different from the layman's version of fact. For example:

The certainty of the statement the sun rose today is 100%.

The certainty of the statement man evolved from a common species with an ape is say 40% (being generous).

The certainty of the statement that the earth is 4.5 billions years old is probably 10%.

If certainty factors can be tied to objectivity, then if scientists think that the certainty that earth is 4.5 billion years old is 100%, then they are the ones with an objectivity problem, not the general populace. They have it about right.

[Liberal Classic]

The option of not paying taxes ...

Blah. We all have to pay taxes. You know that. I can certainly think of programs supported by my tax dollars that I wouldn't personally support. Most of these are much larger issues than that of high school earth science class. Heck, I'd rather that HHS, HUD, the Department of Education, and a bunch of others be defunded to pay for more beans and bullets; an idea you might even agree with.

[js1138]

You make up your own version of reality and confirm it with your own imaginary data. Kewl.

[microgood]

You make up your own version of reality and confirm it with your own imaginary data. Kewl.

I may have had to guess at some numbers but the point is obvious and undeniable, which is the general public has a higher standard for the word "fact" than science does.

[js1138]

What a load of crap. The "fact" that you believe that contradicts your own statement.

[Zionist Conspirator]

"I have the ability to chose good or bad, but I don't have the ability to decide which is which." That's a scary admission.

So you can distinguish right from wrong. So could Lenin.

Perhaps individualist and collectivist atheists should first settle their own argument about what constitutes right and wrong before telling people like me that "we don't need G-d" to tell us this. What if I were to pick the wrong atheist camp to agree with?

All science is incapable of making any claims about God. That's theology, and theology doesn't belong in a science class.

See below, please.

"Wow. There's no higher authority than one's self, I suppose."

There's reality. It's a harsh mistress.

So since you are the ultimate authority only for yourself, and I am my highest authority, why are you contradicting me? And why is "reality" anything's or anyone's "mistress?" A meaningless, self-existent reality doesn't have any "moral authority" just because it exists.

All science is incapable of making any claims about God. That's theology, and theology doesn't belong in a science class.

So the claim that science rules out any direct intervention in the physical world is not a claim about G-d?

And that is true. Science deals with what actually happened, and it's methods allow one to have a better understanding of what happened.

"So what does the "religion" that your evolutionism doesn't oppose do? Anything other than provide a nice cushy job for professional clergy?"

It doesn't provide a method to examine the physical world.

I didn't ask you what your version of legitimate religion doesn't do. I asked you what it does do. Perhaps you are unable to answer the question? And before invoking moral philosophy as a legitimate form of "religion," kindly recall that you explicitly said that evolution does not exclude "God." What does this "God" who doesn't contradict science do? NB: I ask not what "he" doesn't do but what he does.

"So according to you theology shouldn't deal with a theoretical Creator who in some sense actually created the world? "

Not what I said. Theology can do that, but pretending it is also a scientific claim is bad science, and bad theology.

Let me get this straight: Theology can deal with a theoretical creator, but it can't maintain this theoretical creator actually exists (since that would be a "scientific claim"). So once again, in what sense does this theoretical "God" of yours exist again? Or are you admitting that your philosophy is inherently atheistic, since the statments "I believe in a God whose existence doesn't intersect with reality" is the same as saying "I believe there is no God."

"Then how do you defend your previous claim that "evolution isn't atheistic?"

It doesn't say there is or isn't a God. The question isn't a scientific one. NO theory in science deals with God.

So there are somehow two completely separate realities, in one of which G-d actually exists and created the world, and another in which He doesn't and did not. Am I understanding this correctly? But since this "gxd" doesn't actually exist, how is this different from atheism? Belief in a "gxd" who doesn't actually exist isn't belief in G-d at all.

Those other beliefs don't conflict with the physical evidence about the history of the Earth and of life. Nobody I know of is trying to push those beliefs onto unsuspecting children in a science class.

I'm sure the Australian aborigines will be happy to learn that their ancient beliefs are in perfect accord with the latest scientific theories. But I note the coincidence that many self-hating Southerners go out of their way to respect others' beliefs (as a sign of non-provincialism and cosmopolitanism) even as they go out of their way to insult their snake-handling relatives.

Because reality is what it is despite what anybody's inner feelings are.

Reality tells me that if I aim an armed weapon at your heart and pull the trigger and hit my target, you will be injured, perhaps fatally. However, reality does not tell me that it is morally right or morally wrong to do so. And Dennis Prager has amptly demonstrated that G-d is absolutely essential for the existence of objective (as opposed to subjective) morality, since neither reason nor nature provide a moral code. So what does? The individual? In which case I am as much the king of my world as you are of yours, and you have no right to contradict me about any decision I make whatsoever. Perhaps the fact that this worldview is absolutely unworkable is why collectivist atheists have always, and will always, beat the pants off of individualist atheists.

Those who push creationism/ID are pushing the irrational and teaching people that evidence is not needed. The more people who think like that, the scarier the world will become. I live in the world, and my self interest is for as many people as possible to be rational human beings.

"Rational" human beings will not believe in a G-d whose existence makes contact with reality, but will "believe in a 'gxd'" who is entirely separate from reality.

Do "rational human beings" ever take logic or argumentation courses?

That's why I care.

The sooner you get rid of that hangup the happier you will be and the more time you will be able to devote to free market capitalism, which you apparently believe is the true goal of "conservatism." Hey, ants don't worry about such things, and they are as much a part of reality as you and I (but not G-d, apparently).

The only self-haters I see here are the people who hate the brains they were born with and refuse to use them to understand the world.

Hmmm. So when the brains I was born with look at your statements and see them as irreconcilable and internally inconsistent (it's okay to believe in "gxd" as long as this "gxd" is totally separate from reality, and this somehow does not constitute atheism), they are obviously malfunctioning in some manner. Perhaps this is why when I ask you to define what this "gxd" that doesn't impinge on reality is and does you do not answer.

[Zionist Conspirator]

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:22)

The very situation that has to be corrected.

So if you, I, Hitler, and Stalin all meet and discuss what is good and what is evil, which one of us is correct?

[balrog666]

To: microgood / You make up your own version of reality and confirm it with your own imaginary data. Kewl.

Madness is its own reward.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You're overwhelmed with paranoia. I assure that if "aboriginal dreamtime" were construed as suggesting a chronology and sequence of earth history that contradicted the meticulously accumulated knowledge of professional geology, and if some group insisted that "dreamtime" science be included in textbooks and curricula as an "alternative" to conventional geology, the reaction would be EXACTLY the same.

What? You'd force your parocial, Western, European worldview on INDIGENOUS PIPPLES whose view is just as valid and receives the approbation of otherwise atheist Marxists everywhere? I thought one atheistic criticism of chr*stianity was that it altered and adulterated the native religious beliefs of "indigenous pipples" (which atheists, supposedly, would have preserved pristine and undefiled).

[Liberal Classic]

My wife does a wonderful Zha Zha-like "Hello little pipples!"

[Junior]

Read the damned book before making ignorant comments like this. By careful analysis (both internal and external) one can arrive at a fair approximation of the original works.

[microgood]

What a load of crap. The "fact" that you believe that contradicts your own statement.

You are in denial. The bottom line is:

Do you believe that we descended from a common ancestor with apes with the same amount of certainty that you believe the sun rose today?

The answer is no.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So you can distinguish right from wrong. So could Lenin."

No he couldn't. That was his problem.

"Perhaps individualist and collectivist atheists should first settle their own argument about what constitutes right and wrong before telling people like me that "we don't need G-d" to tell us this. What if I were to pick the wrong atheist camp to agree with?"

Reality would set you straight.

"So since you are the ultimate authority only for yourself, and I am my highest authority, why are you contradicting me? "

Reality is the highest authority.

"And why is "reality" anything's or anyone's "mistress?" "

Because it is.

"A meaningless, self-existent reality doesn't have any "moral authority" just because it exists."

Oh, but it does.

"So the claim that science rules out any direct intervention in the physical world is not a claim about G-d?"

That isn't a claim that science makes. Science says that there is no way to know one way or the other.

"I asked you what it does do."

Makes people feel good.

"What does this "God" who doesn't contradict science do?"

Whatever people imagines it does.

"So there are somehow two completely separate realities, in one of which G-d actually exists and created the world, and another in which He doesn't and did not."

You really don't know much about epistemology do you?

"Theology can deal with a theoretical creator, but it can't maintain this theoretical creator actually exists (since that would be a "scientific claim")."

Theologians can claim anything you want about God; when they call it science they are wrong.

"Or are you admitting that your philosophy is inherently atheistic, since the statments "I believe in a God whose existence doesn't intersect with reality" is the same as saying "I believe there is no God."

Again, you lack basic understanding of epistemological limits. Science says simply that since God isn't testable, it's not science. Maybe he exists; maybe not. Science can't answer that for you.

"But since this "gxd" doesn't actually exist, how is this different from atheism? Belief in a "gxd" who doesn't actually exist isn't belief in G-d at all."

I don't think even YOU know what that meant.

"But I note the coincidence that many self-hating Southerners go out of their way to respect others' beliefs (as a sign of non-provincialism and cosmopolitanism) even as they go out of their way to insult their snake-handling relatives."

I have no snake-handling relatives. I love my family, and I respect their beliefs.

BTW, you still haven't figured out your major blunder of presumption. I'll let you dig a little deeper first. :)

"Reality tells me that if I aim an armed weapon at your heart and pull the trigger and hit my target, you will be injured, perhaps fatally. However, reality does not tell me that it is morally right or morally wrong to do so."

Reality tells me that reason is what enables me to survive inb this world. When I go against that, reality kicks me in the ass.

"And Dennis Prager has amptly demonstrated that G-d is absolutely essential for the existence of objective (as opposed to subjective) morality, since neither reason nor nature provide a moral code."

Moral codes handed down by an unobservable, untestable God are no more objective than reading tea leaves.

"Perhaps the fact that this worldview is absolutely unworkable is why collectivist atheists have always, and will always, beat the pants off of individualist atheists."

The collectivist theists have both beat.

""Rational" human beings will not believe in a G-d whose existence makes contact with reality, but will "believe in a 'gxd'" who is entirely separate from reality."

Really? How does this make you feel?

"Do "rational human beings" ever take logic or argumentation courses?"

Yes, but creationists never do. :)

"The sooner you get rid of that hangup"

Wanting a world where people are rational is not a hangup. Sorry you feel that way.

"So when the brains I was born with look at your statements and see them as irreconcilable and internally inconsistent (it's okay to believe in "gxd" as long as this "gxd" is totally separate from reality, and this somehow does not constitute atheism),"

Which is not what I said... :)

"they are obviously malfunctioning in some manner."

Obviously.

"Perhaps this is why when I ask you to define what this "gxd" that doesn't impinge on reality is and does you do not answer."

I never mentioned gxd, I was talking about God. As I stated, over and over again, science simply has no means to investigate God. ALL science is done this way, yet you attack only those that are associated with evolution.

You ARE amusing though. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Do you believe that we descended from a common ancestor with apes with the same amount of certainty that you believe the sun rose today?

The answer is no."

The answer is, what a silly question. Tell us what area of science YOU would accept with the same certainty as you would that the sun rose this morning?

The answer: Not many, if any.

[js1138]

The answer is yes. I haven't seen anyone with adequate science background deny common descent, and that includes the major critics of evolution.

I would bet my life on common descent.

[microgood]

The answer is yes. I haven't seen anyone with adequate science background deny common descent, and that includes the major critics of evolution. I would bet my life on common descent.

OK. But surely you can see why someone from the general public (non science) would not agree with you.

[microgood]

The answer is, what a silly question. Tell us what area of science YOU would accept with the same certainty as you would that the sun rose this morning?

Well actually it was part of a bigger point but there are facts derived from of science that are confirmable daily such as the acceleration due to gravity and the distance to the moon etc.

[js1138]

I can see why ignorant, uneducated people would disagree, but then many people watch daytime TV. Uneducated opinions are worthless in science.

The only place where I respect the opinion of "common" people equally with that of experts in in the area of law and politics.