Intelligent design advocates to campaign in Kansas

Lawrence Journal-World (Kansas) ^ | 07 July 2006 | Scott Rothschild

[PatrickHenry]

A Seattle-based research group that advocates intelligent design said today it will campaign to educate Kansans that the science standards approved by the State Board of Education are sound.

“Kansas citizens need to have accurate information about what the science standards do,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture for Discovery Institute.

West said the group will start an information campaign over the Internet immediately and possibly start a radio campaign. He declined to say how much the center would spend.

The decision puts the Discovery Institute in the center of hotly-contested State Board of Education school board races.

The board’s 6-4 decision to approve science standards that question evolution has been a major issue in the five board places that are up for grabs this year. The science standards are used as guidelines to what students learn in Kansas public schools.

Mainstream scientists have said the standards criticize evolution in a way that could introduce intelligent design in science classrooms. Intelligent design posits there was a master force that designed life.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"ID doesn't is supposed to identify makers of intelligence, not the identity of that intelligence."

It has yet to identify either.

"Nor does ID purport to be a version of the argument from design at the biological level."

It's no different than what Paley was saying 200 years ago. It's the same argument dressed up in modern garb.

"It isn't asking that ID be taught in Kansas schools by any means-- it's only asking that teachers equip students to critically analyze evolutionary theory by presenting them with the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution."

Their critiques are not based on science.

[js1138]

The idea that one document can speak for all "IDer's" is a silly and bankrupt notion...

Because ID has no core, no hypothesis, and no suggestions for research. It is a religious concept dressed up in the garb of science. It rejects the concepts and methods of science.

[mjolnir]

It's no different than what Paley was saying 200 years ago. It's the same argument dressed up in modern garb.

Not at all; Paley's argument was a version of the argument from design; as such, it was a form of natural theology. Arguments for and against ID can be cashed out without referring to God at all-- one simply ignores all Creationist criticisms of ID to pretend otherwise (unless the idea is that the former only pretend to criticize the latter).

Their critiques are not based on science.

To repeat, the Discovery Institute is not asking that ID be taught in schools, so whose critiques are you talking about? I mentioned Wolfram and Margulis--- surely their critiques meet your criterion as properly scientific?

[OmahaFields]

Incidentally, I hope you don't mind my asking why you use the tag line you do. Thomas Jefferson was a great thinker and in his thoughts on natural rights, which thought to be derived from the God he saw plain evidence of in nature, he provided a foundation upon which Lincoln stood to free this country from its slavery. In his writings on agrarianism and limited government, he even shows some hints of conservatism.

Because it makes people stop and think and ask questions. BTW, What has TJ to do with my tagline?

[js1138]

Wolfram is a smart guy, but I wonder what you think he's added to biology?

[OmahaFields]

"It isn't asking that ID be taught in Kansas schools by any means--

Then why were they previewing the ID DVD at the board meeting?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Not at all; Paley's argument was a version of the argument from design;"

So is ID.

"Arguments for and against ID can be cashed out without referring to God at all-- "

So can the classic argument from design. That Paley claimed the designer was the God from the Bible in no way changes the thrust of the argument. That being said, the current crop of ID'ers also believe that too, they just aren't as honest as Paley was.

"To repeat, the Discovery Institute is not asking that ID be taught in schools, so whose critiques are you talking about?"

The Discovery Institute's, and their lackeys on the school boards.

"I mentioned Wolfram and Margulis--- surely their critiques meet your criterion as properly scientific?"

They are not ID'ers, nor do they say that evolution didn't happen.
ID is not science.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Then why were they previewing the ID DVD at the board meeting?"

I think you meant to address that to someone else. :)

[OmahaFields]

To repeat, the Discovery Institute is not asking that ID be taught in schools, so whose critiques are you talking about? I mentioned Wolfram and Margulis--- surely their critiques meet your criterion as properly scientific?

Facts differ. They are out to replace science with fable.

The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (P-140 at 4). In addition, and as previously Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 68 of 139 14 Further support for this proposition is found in the Wedge Strategy, which is composed of three phases: Phase I is scientific research, writing and publicity; Phase II is publicity and opinion-making; and Phase III is cultural confrontation and renewal. (P-140 at 3). In the “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary,” the Wedge Document explains that the social consequences of materialism have been “devastating” and that it is necessary to broaden the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of ID. “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” Id. at 6. Phase I of the Wedge Strategy is an essential component and directly references “scientific revolutions.” Phase II explains that alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, “we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence that support the faith, as well as to ‘popularize’ our ideas in the broader culture.” Id. Finally, Phase III includes pursuing possible legal assistance “in response to resistance to theintegration of design theory into public school science curricula.” Id. at 7. 69 noted, the Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Id. at 6. The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.14

[OmahaFields]

"Then why were they previewing the ID DVD at the board meeting?"

[OmahaFields]

The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.14

[mjolnir]

Because it makes people stop and think and ask questions. BTW, What has TJ to do with my tagline?

Ah, sorry. I mixed up his anti-religious bigotry with that of James Madison, who sadly left the Federalists to basically become his disciple. There being no space between their views (as of the time of the quote you cite) on religion, the French Revolution and their connection, the point still stands-- the quote echoes the French Revolution's bigoted totalitarian absolutist elitism. yes, I know that's a lot of adjectives, but the French Revolution was that bad, and neither the support Jefferson and Madison gave to it nor the elitist bigotry that motivated their support of it forms a legacy compatible with that of conservatism imo.

[OmahaFields]

Ah, sorry. I mixed up his anti-religious bigotry with that of James Madison,

Some call it anti-religious bigotry, others call it helping to save us from being a theocracy.

[Radix]

"Punctuated Equilibrium'

 

Now there is an idea.

 

If the shoe don't fit, get a new shoe.

 

 

 

 

All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost)

Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium

[mjolnir]

hey-- you already quoted that!

Seriously, the Wedge Document states that science shouldn't be confused with applied metaphysical materialism-- so what?

[Radix]

I think that Stephen J. Gould was cool.

I wish that he were still around so that he could explain his brilliance to me.

But now he ain't here, so let me get it.

[mjolnir]

"Not at all; Paley's argument was a version of the argument from design;"

So is ID.

"Arguments for and against ID can be cashed out without referring to God at all-- "

So can the classic argument from design. That Paley claimed the designer was the God from the Bible in no way changes the thrust of the argument. That being said, the current crop of ID'ers also believe that too, they just aren't as honest as Paley was.

"To repeat, the Discovery Institute is not asking that ID be taught in schools, so whose critiques are you talking about?"

The Discovery Institute's, and their lackeys on the school boards.

"I mentioned Wolfram and Margulis--- surely their critiques meet your criterion as properly scientific?"

They are not ID'ers, nor do they say that evolution didn't happen.
ID is not science.

I don't think you're correct about the classic argument from design. The reason it's called the argument FROM design is that it's an argument for something, namely God's existence. In other words, the classic argument from design assumed that design in nature was fairly obvious-- it was the inference FROM design to God that was its focus. In other words, it followed the form, 1)If there is design in nature, then God exists. 2)There is design in nature 3)Therefore God exists. As Hume pointed out, of the two premises, it was the conditional statement in the first one that was taken to be doing the main work of the argument.

IDer's don't say evolution didn't happen either; they simply question whether it occurred via natural selection in every case it is posited to have done. Wolfram does the same in his explanation of prebiotic evolution; according to him, ID was the best explanation for that phenomenon until the discoveries detailed in his "New Kind of Science" relating to self-organization were made.

Margulis has similarly challenged not the truth, but the scope of Darwin's theory. My point was not that she was an IDer-- she not only isn't, she is an admitted card carrying Darwinist. My point was that the Discovery Institute believes that students should be introduced to those sorts of doubts about Darwinist it will actually make Darwin's theory more interesting to them and help them learn better. You don't have to be an IDer to believe this-- Larry Arnhart, no friend of ID, has said much the same thing.

[OmahaFields]

14 Further support for this proposition is found in the Wedge Strategy, which is composed of three phases: Phase I is scientific research, writing and publicity; Phase II is publicity and opinion-making; and Phase III is cultural confrontation and renewal. (P-140 at 3). In the “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary,” the Wedge Document explains that the social consequences of materialism have been “devastating” and that it is necessary to broaden the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of ID. “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” Id. at 6. Phase I of the Wedge Strategy is an essential component and directly references “scientific revolutions.” Phase II explains that alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, “we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence that support the faith, as well as to ‘popularize’ our ideas in the broader culture.” Id. Finally, Phase III includes pursuing possible legal assistance “in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.” Id. at 7. 69

[Coyoteman]

PE is an old idea. There are areas where it seems to fit pretty well.

(Does this mean I'm not on the "Bye" list any longer? Or was that just a brief parting salutation?)

[OmahaFields]

My point was that the Discovery Institute believes that students should be introduced to those sorts of doubts about Darwinist it will actually make Darwin's theory more interesting to them and help them learn better.