Posted on 05/15/2006 5:29:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
When a U.S. district court ruled last December that the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district could not require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled—not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country. Well, their celebrations may have been premature, unless school policies are somehow exempted from the requirements of democracy.
Virginia Commonwealth University recently released the results of its “Life Sciences Survey,” which measures public attitudes toward scientific issues. Among the issues asked about was the “origin of biological life.”
By nearly a 5-1 margin, people believe that God, either “directly” or by guiding the process, was responsible for the “origin of biological life.” Only 15 percent agreed with teaching a strictly materialistic explanation.
Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.
These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans. Some even suggest that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes.
Nonsense! What’s on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It’s simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God—what theologians call the imago Dei. Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can’t erase it, and it’s also a recognition of the limits of science.
Father Richard Neuhaus captured this in the March issue of First Things. The “controversy,” he wrote, “is composed of a complex mixture of science, religion, culture, and politics.” This “complex mixture,” which involves every aspect of human life, cannot be settled by a single judge’s opinion or by the Darwinists’ propaganda. People simply know better, and they want to have a say in how their children are educated.
This is true not only of intelligent design. The same dynamic is at work in the embryonic stem-cell research debate. The scientific establishment insists that it must operate without interference from those it deems “irrational,” like Christians it considers enemies of progress.
Yet 56 percent in the same survey agreed that “scientific research doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society.” Fifty-two percent agreed that this research creates as many problems as solutions. For a group aspiring to god-like status, like scientists, this is bad news.
But it cannot be otherwise. Science does not operate independently of the larger culture. Scientists are not exempt from, as Neuhaus puts it, paying their respects to democracy. Thinking otherwise is not science: It is scientism, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth. And if this survey is any indication, Americans don’t buy it.
That’s why debates over science and culture will continue. They will continue until the scientific establishment—and the courts—acknowledge the limits of what science can and cannot tell us, and when it begins to give a say to the people on how they want their children educated.
archive
"Science deals with the material universe and is hence, materialistic. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of morality'
Then the science types had better shut up about morality then! I get tired of the science types who decry the the moral history of given religions, the wars...ect. blah blah blah! For a science type to decry a belief as "superstition" is actually a moral judgment and not a scientific statement.
I think you're right, too. Just like the ACLU and others are using evolution in their efforts to force religion out of the schools under the guise of *keeping science pure*. The Scopes trials were supposedly just to make the teaching of evolution allowed alongside creation. Look what's happened now. We've come a long way; from allowing it to be taught together, to an outright ban on teaching creation. That had to be their agenda all along. When the ACLU is done with them, they'll be the next targets.
If this material existence is an example of intelligent design, I would hate to see it with unintelligent design. Why would an intelligent designer create people, too many of whom freely choose to commit murder, genocide, theft; adultery; sexual perversions; etc. If you were all powerful and all knowing would you create people who would choose to do those things and say that they were created in your image? How does that indicate "Intelligent design"? It does not make sense.
What makes sense to me is that the true Creation and Its Creator are Spiritual, not material. This Spiritual Creation is perfect and an example of Intelligent Design. The human experience in this material world is mortal; the result of Intelligent Design is immortal. When we perceive reality as material and imperfect we are exhibiting the "flat world" consciousness of believing appearances and not being aware of or understanding the reality of existence. That is what I want children to be taught - but not in public school - that is for Sunday School. Just a wild guess here, but I would imagine there are a few literal Bible readers who would not agree with my beliefs. That's why it is not good to mix personal religious beliefs with the requirement to educate children from all religious backgrounds.
No, I don't.
I would be interested to see a specimen of a consistent relativist, though. I don't think they can exist in real life, but DNA's "Man in the Shack" is a fictional approximation.
The problem is that if you want to argue science, you need to become versed in the subject. When non-scientists try to attack science, they often fall short because they do not know what they are talking about. Yes, it does sound arrogant and scientists need to be more eloquent, but it does not change the facts on the ground. In order to argue against evolution, you need to study and understand the current state of evolution and biological sciences. There are a lot of people who try to 'arm-caheir quarterback' science, but that does not mean they know what they are doing.
I work in industrial R&D, where knowing science makes or breaks the company. If you don't know what you are talking about and cannot perform basic science, you will be chewed up and spat out in the unforgiving business world where results matter.
It's good that we have someone here that is soooo intelligent that they can sit in judgment of God, or whatever designer they happen to believe in, that is powerful enough to create the universe and something as complex as life. And you could do a better job, I suppose?
Perfoming science properly reqires an ability to properly understand and apply the scientific method not to understand and accept the ToE. *Science* and *evolution* are not interchangable terms.
You're added! See you tomorrow.
I actually had two or three graduate-level seminars on problems in evolution. There were plenty of controversies too!
(They weren't the ones pushed as "controversies" on these threads.)
New tagline...until tomorrow at least...:-)
What scientific facts are known concerning the origin of life?
I'm reposting this question to all to get as many answers as possible.
What scientific facts are known concerning the origns of life?
Evolution conforms to the scientific method. It is liekly the most tested scientific theory in exsitence at this time.
Well, scientists are entitled to their political opinions, must like anyone else. However, what you describe, moral history of religions, wars, etc., falls outside science as you pointed out. unless such opinions are based upon the impact of scientific and technological issues of the time. However, scientists are right to point out when something advocated as science by the lay public isn't science.
Darn, I should have bought that Tshirt which explained why God was a bad scientist.
I think one was that gods experiment, creation of the universe, was not duplicable by other scientist..
I forgot the rest.
LOL! Well, God can't be a scientist. Any Christian should know why, too.
I have misgivings about completely divorcing science from philosophy. I think it is neccessary as a guide to why we research what we do. It obviously should have no impact on the evidence, or results. However, it does serve as a guide for applying science to our lives, and formulating the questions for science to answer. The questions from a religious person, may be very different from one who is not. The science will be the same, but the person's interpretation of the results may not, and someone has to interpret. This would vary according to the field of science since there are different sets of codes that influence each. Medical research has different questions, and implications than does research regarding ToE. How did we develop these codes if it weren't for philosophy? How do we have any direction from which to pursue science? And, whose direction is correct? Can we answer that in complete absolutes? Further more, without philosophy, why do we even care to pursue science anyway? Didn't ToE start with a philosophical curiousity on Darwin's part?
You might try reading my entire post and then think about it a little more. I am not judging God, I am evaluating a human perception of God and pointing out that there are many beliefs regarding our Spiritual Source and that education belongs in Churches and Sunday Schools, NOT in public schools.
Not helpful at all.
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.