Posted on 06/07/2002 11:35:28 AM PDT by jennyp
To Seattle area residents the struggle over how evolution is taught in public high schools may seem a topic from the distant past or a distant place.
Don't bet on it. One nearby episode in the controversy has ended, but a far-reaching, Seattle-based agenda to overthrow Darwin is gaining momentum.
Roger DeHart, a high-school science teacher who was the center of an intense curriculum dispute a few years ago in Skagit County, is leaving the state. He plans to teach next year in a private Christian school in California.
The fuss over DeHart's use of "intelligent design" theory in his classes at Burlington-Edison High School was merely a tiny blip in a grand scheme by promoters of the theory.
The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.
Who is this unnamed being? Well, God, I presume. Wouldn't you?
As unlikely as it may seem, Seattle is ground zero for the intelligent-design agenda, thanks to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).
Headed by one-time Seattle City councilman and former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute is best known locally for its savvy insights on topics ranging from regionalism, transportation, defense policy and the economy.
In the late '90s, the institute jumped into the nation's culture wars with the CRSC. It may be little known to local folks, but it has caught the attention of conservative religious organizations around the country.
It's bound to get more attention in the future. Just last month, a documentary, Icons of Evolution, premiered at Seattle Pacific University. The video is based on a book of the same name by CRSC fellow Jonathan Wells. It tells the story of DeHart, along with the standard critique of Darwinian evolution that fuels the argument for intelligent design.
The video is part of the anti-Darwin agenda. Cruise the Internet on this topic and you'll find something called the Wedge Strategy, which credits the CRSC with a five-year plan for methodically promoting intelligent design and a 20-year goal of seeing "design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
Last week, Chapman tried to put a little distance between his institute and the "wedge" document. He said it was a fund-raising tool used four years ago. "I don't disagree with it," he told me, "but it's not our program." (I'll let the folks who gave money based on the proposed strategy ponder what that means.)
Program or not, it is clear that the CRSC is intent on bringing down what one Center fellow calls "scientific imperialism." Surely Stephen Jay Gould already is spinning in his grave. Gould, one of America's most widely respected scientists and a prolific essayist, died just two weeks ago. Among his many fine books is one I kept by my bedside for many weeks after it was published in 1999, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life."
In "Rock of Ages," Gould presents an elegant case for the necessary co-existence of science and religion. Rather than conflicting, as secular humanists insist, or blending, as intelligent-design proponents would have it, science and religion exist in distinct domains, what Gould called magisteria (domains of teaching authority).
The domain of science is the empirical universe; the domain of religion is the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of life.
Gould was called America's most prominent evolutionist, yet he too, was a critic of Darwin's theory, and the object of some controversy within the scientific community. There's a lesson in that: In the domain of science there is plenty of room for disagreement and alternative theories without bringing God into the debate.
I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.
That's what they continue to do in Skagit County. Last week, the Burlington-Edison School Board rejected on a 4-1 vote a proposal to "encourage" the teaching of intelligent design. Bravo.
Despite proponents' claims of scientific validity, intelligent design is little more than religion-based creationism wrapped in critiques of Darwin and all dressed up in politically correct language. All for the ultimate goal — placing a Christian God in science classrooms of America's public high schools.
It should be noted that this is precisely what separates humans from any other animal. The protection of endangered species is a perfect case in point -- no animal would ever go out of its way to ensure the survival of another species simply for the sake of doing so.
I was specifically addressing a comment by that poster in which he described the progressive complexity of species as a basic tenet of Darwinism. Even if you could not measure the difference between a zebra in 1830 and a zebra in 2002, the zebra in 2002 must be more "complex" if this principle is true.
You are applying that likelihood principle in a very selective manner. If a two-legged mammal and a four-legged mammal have some similarities but a vastly larger number of differences, I'd say the likelihood principle would not favor a common origin. I can be six feet tall and weigh 200 pounds, but the fact that a log in the woods is six feet tall and weighs 200 pounds does not mean we have a common ancestor.
In addition, you are making my case when you state that reality is largely a matter of human perception. If the people of the 3rd century B.C. were incorrect when they assumed that the world was flat simply because every piece of evidence seemed to indicate that this was the case, then what credence should I give to anything that is passed off as science today? Human perception cannot be the defining influence in what is known as "truth," especially when you can cite so many cases where we clearly understand it to have been wrong!
The stated assumptions are that all people are equal with respect to morals; that morals apply equally to all persons; that individuals are sovereign. If it is not immoral for me to initiate force against another, then it is not immoral for another to initiate force against me. Since I do not wish another to initiate force against me, I may not initiate force against another. Coercion is the threat of force. Fraud is willful deception during a transaction, usually for the purpose of disproportionate gain.
And you're still dodging the question: Are there actions which are immoral without the say-so of God?
You said that if God did not prohibit murder, then he would not be God. Is God constrained then to only approve empirically moral actions? How is such determined? Could God approve of an immoral action?
I've answered enough of your questions. You start answering some of mine.
| To: medved No one likes spam. 210 posted on 3/13/02 11:14 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson |
| Thread | "God Hates IDIOTS, Too!" 3½pg. spam | "Some useful references" 3pg. spam |
|---|---|---|
| Not-So-Intelligent Design | 201 posted on 3/5/02 6:08 AM Pacific by medved | 202 posted on 3/5/02 6:11 AM Pacific by medved |
| A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare] | 221 posted on 3/5/02 10:08 PM Pacific by medved | |
| A Second Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare] | 21 posted on 3/6/02 6:03 AM Pacific by medved | |
| Design vs. evolution discussion Monday | 11 posted on 3/8/02 4:13 PM Pacific by medved | 12 posted on 3/8/02 4:15 PM Pacific by medved |
| Panel weighs science-standard bill (Evolution v. Intelligent Design) | 18 posted on 3/8/02 4:21 PM Pacific by medved | 19 posted on 3/8/02 4:22 PM Pacific by medved |
| Common Creationist Arguments | 165 posted on 3/9/02 10:08 AM Pacific by medved | 166 posted on 3/9/02 10:09 AM Pacific by medved |
| Creation vs evolution in England state school | 14 posted on 3/9/02 10:19 AM Pacific by medved | 15 posted on 3/9/02 10:20 AM Pacific by medved |
| Fundamentalists re-create Eden, with dinosaurs | 100 posted on 3/10/02 7:47 AM Pacific by medved | 101 posted on 3/10/02 7:48 AM Pacific by medved |
| How Evolution Monkeys with Duplicate Genes | 128 posted on 3/12/02 7:07 PM Pacific by medved | 129 posted on 3/12/02 7:08 PM Pacific by medved |
| Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience | 46 posted on 3/13/02 10:18 AM Pacific by medved | 47 posted on 3/13/02 10:20 AM Pacific by medved |
| New evidence we all have the same ancestors Cal student's discovery should resolve dispute | 10 posted on 3/22/02 6:15 AM Pacific by medved |
|
| The evolving Darwin debate | 51 posted on 3/25/02 5:55 AM Pacific by medved |
|
| Evolution is designed for science classes | 160 posted on 3/28/02 8:01 PM Pacific by medved |
|
| Ohio Excludes Creationism | 79 posted on 4/2/02 3:50 PM Pacific by medved |
|
| Evolution: What is it? (long article) | 144 posted on 4/4/02 6:25 PM Pacific by medved |
|
| Bishop warns Blair over danger of creationism | 9 posted on 4/6/02 5:48 PM Pacific by medved |
10 posted on 4/6/02 5:49 PM Pacific by medved |
| Gould Strikes Back At Creationists | 319 posted on 4/10/02 8:54 PM Pacific by medved |
|
| The Truth for Youth: The Stupidest Comics Ever | 30 posted on 4/20/02 1:48 PM Pacific by medved |
131 posted on 4/20/02 6:25 PM Pacific by medved |
| (Medved took a vacation here, then started up again...) | ||
| White House to honor prominent evolutionist | 64 posted on 5/9/02 8:16 PM Pacific by medved | 65 posted on 5/9/02 8:18 PM Pacific by medved |
| ["Icons of Evolution"] Premiere Evolves into Protest | 38 posted on 5/20/02 7:23 PM Pacific by medved |
|
| Intelligent Design? (Another School Board Disclaimers Evolution) | 52 posted on 5/23/02 6:44 PM Pacific by medved |
|
| Berkeley s Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson | 323 posted on 5/30/02 11:37 AM Pacific by medved |
|
| Scientific Boehner: The new creationism and the congressmen who support it. | 112 posted on 6/6/02 1:59 AM Pacific by medved |
104 posted on 6/6/02 1:10 AM Pacific by medved |
| Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection | 194 posted on 6/7/02 5:58 PM Pacific by medved |
192 posted on 6/7/02 5:55 PM Pacific by medved |
Homeschooling Has Come A Long Way
"There are many more worthless courses taught in public schools on which homeschoolers will not spend their precious time, such as courses in...evolution"
19th century junk science to 20th century junk science. Progress, huh.
Yeah, I liked her article - everything except her misguided crack against evolution.
Ethics," writes Ayn Rand, "is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival"
But if man is not spiritually different than any other animal why should this be the case? Other creatures survive without our Western Judeo-Christian, property respecting, life respecting, take-care-of-the-old-and-ill ethics. Why should we need them to survive?
Ah, but Man is spiritually different than any other animal! We're the animals with the really big brains, and not much else of distinction. We're forced to use our brains, with their ability to form far-reaching abstract rational thought, to guide us in our lives. This is what makes us individuals with free will. And that is what makes morality a necessary component for any survival strategy - or certainly any thrival strategy.
Put another way: Civilization is a tool we created to help us sustain The Good Life, and morality is a tool we created to sustain civilization.
Seriously, isn't it funny how conservatives generally are smart enough not to believe ANY of the bullsh*t that comes out of universities and academia and the intelligensia, knowing the AGENDA the people have, how the left has long ago co-opted what remains of any semblance of objective "truth" on campuses, where, for example, "history" includes things like, oh, the U.S. was the agressor against Japan in WWII...
Yet, YET---some people swallow this warmed over make-the-data-fit-the-theory Marxist pseudo-science stuff that has never even been made to stand the RIGORS of science? "Evolution" is a theory with the scientific authority and legitimacy of TREPANNING The only difference is that while each has been thoroughly discredited, trepanning doesn't have an ideological component that militates the allegiance of each member of academia.
Denial of the sacrilege of evolution is BLASPHEMY and is punishable by excommunication, ostracism, being cast out, and being called a............CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!!
The home-school-hating left is shoulder-to-shoulder with you on this. If the left has its way, they'll get this situation corrected. The indoctrination of evolution is critical to their success. Home-schooling is causing them and their agenda a LOT of problems.
I have read my comment that your sentence here is in response to, and I can't figure out what the heck it means. And my comment that you are replying to wasn't even responding to you or to anything you wrote. I'd only said one thing to you, and it was to point you to the Sclafly comment on homeschooling vis-a-vis the teaching of evolution.
This comment of yours is an example of why I avoid these threads. You evolutionists are just way too weird. You are like SCARED TO DEATH that someone is watching and you will not seem STRIDENT enough in your defense of evolution.
Like the PARTY'S BLOC COMMITTEE of the RED GUARD is watching and if you don't say something that is deemed communist enough, the party will question your loyalty to the cause of evolution.
If "So, how's your mechanical relay powered PC holding up?" is supposed to be some sort of insult to me, it comes across as the words of a self-concious child, maybe a bully, nervously trying to impress onlookers, to prove that you've somehow intimidated the STUPID one---the dumb CONSERVATIVE. The dumb CHRISTIAN. The dumb HOME SCHOOLER.
Well, I think the ones you have to worry about---the ones who would be testing your loyalty to the "CAUSE" are over at DU---so let your hair down. I won't BUST you. I won't bust your chops, or rat you out. Be yourself. Instead of flippant sarcasm, get real. Why not use real words and address the ISSUE or the FACTS?
Oh, never mind. That NEVER happens on these evolution threads. That's ANOTHER reason I don't come here. The evolutionists get too emotional. It's like something from The Manchurian Candidate or Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. You MENTION it and their LITANY from the liberal CATECHISM about evolution KICKS in and you have to shake them out of it to remind them that, hey, in every OTHER way---other than this adult fairy tale from the 19th century, you are a normal American conservative! (or at least most of them seem to PRETEND to be when you run into them on some other threads....hummm...makes you wonder though...I will personally trust Phyllis Schlafly myself...)
building a bridge to the 19th century.
Then you start railing against 20th century academia...
Seriously, isn't it funny how conservatives generally are smart enough not to believe ANY of the bullsh*t that comes out of universities and academia and the intelligensia, knowing the AGENDA the people have, how the left has long ago co-opted what remains of any semblance of objective "truth" on campuses, where, for example, "history" includes things like, oh, the U.S. was the agressor against Japan in WWII...
But it was 20th century academia that came up with stuff like, oh I don't know, COMPUTERS. And modern medicine, and ... well, you know, just about all the stuff you have today. What's left to wish for - the 18th century???
But seriously, why do you insist on lumping the hard science of mainstream biology together with the soft social sciences like history or sociology where idiotic ideological theories really have been able to run rampant?
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.