Posted on 11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST by Nebullis
The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.
"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."
American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.
Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:
"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."
In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."
The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.
In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.
A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
Is naturalism to be conceieved free from the constraints of anything that is not naturalism?
The lack of understanding of science exhibited on these threads is pitiable. The more so because, presumably, the players here have had exposure to it.
Anybody with absolute power would. Although a true belief in God would provide an understanding that one does not have absolute power. History bears this out. There have been theistic (Christian) monarchs who have been brutal by our standards. Henry VIII and Queen Isabella come to mind. As brutal as they were they did not come close to matching the cruelty of the mildest atheist leader.
Of course, presenting a well-formed rational justification for why the jack-booted thug should stop pulling my books out of the bookcase . . . is always a difficult project. :-)
No, it's not. It's easy.We our endowed by Our Creator with inalienable rights. God does not respect persons. I have no more right to force beliefs on you that you do on me. God says so. :-)
The foundation flows from the facts of our basic human nature as thinking beings. If this is not so, then we should expect to see some of these things happen in the future: Radical Islamic states will prosper & grow (not just in isolated, walled-off countries like Taliban Afghanistan), Communism will likewise stage a comeback & thrive in many places, and so will any number of fundamentally different systems. I doubt that will happen. (I guess there's a falsifiable prediction for you!)
Unless what overcomes these things is Christianity. Or a Christian worldview. One of the most significant differences between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity is most logically interpreted as a rejection of earthly power. Christ is going to bring His kingdom about on His schedule. He doesn't need help from a government. If one believe that God is sovereign yet allows people to reject Him, how can one believe that government coercion is somehow desirable in acheiving His will?
A liberal (dictionary definition) society -- which is what we both advocate -- is by definition based on Christian values and hence anthema to Islam or fasicism or communism.
Communism was ultimately beaten by Christianity starting with Whitaker Chambers and Buckley all the way through Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II -- despite a multitude of useful idiots invoking the name of Christ to appease the dicators.
I think there's a couple of ways to look at this debate and why it's so divisive.
On the science side, we want to stick with a process that can be definitive where the evidence is sufficient. If you saw the threads on the "James ossuary", the process that those folks follow, will never lead to a resolution. Christianity still recognizes 3 different relationships of James to Jesus. He's either his brother, his half-brother or his cousin. How can you ever make any progress towards anything?
In the US, there are over 250 different Christian churches alone. This is not a failure of Christianity BTW, its simply the nature of man to be divisive. To have a process that requires evidence and objective evaluation (admittedly in modern times its getting to be more obscure), is essential to maintaining a technological society. When science becomes directed by the theology of the day, our civilization could be gone in just a few generations.
On the other side, Creationists and ID'ers are battling in a world that is increasingly without moral direction and run by people you wouldn't allow to clean your toilet. I think you don't have to look any farther than Clinton and his effect on the way teens think about sex to see it.
Outside of cyberspace, people that I know usually can understand the difference between a very narrow body of knowledge vs. divinely inspired knowledge for moral instruction, given time to consider it. But there's a group of folks who've found a way to make their living preying on the fears of Christians and other people of faith to sell their anti-science agenda for their own benefit.
Here's a good book for human beings who really can and do think about philosophy of science issues:
Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations) by Deborah Mayo.
There's even a nice little review right here.
I see you're using more Evolutionary Logic here:
You claim that Eldredge is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, one side when he criticizes the horse series and one side when he affirms that the fossil record of horses demonstrates evolution.
What you're having trouble admitting is Eldredge contradicted himself.
Here's an example to make it easier to understand:
I walked into Mel's Diner and noticed all the tables were taken. The waitress, Flo, asked "Do you want to sit at the counter?" "Sure," I replied.And you don't see a contradiction.While looking over the lunch menu I couldn't help but hear the conversation of the two men sitting next to me. Flo heard it too. They were talking about a speculative investment labeled deplorable by Investors Business Daily and The Wall Street Journal referred to it as an imaginary story.
"Hurry and leave before Mel arrives" one man said to the other, "he might suspect something if he sees you" he continued as the other got up and left.
The man remaining turned to me and said: "Watch this, I'm going to get Mel to purchase this deplorable, particularly speculative, imaginary investment." I turned to look at Flo who heard it as well and smiled.
Just then Mel walked in, the man approached him and started talking about this good investment he thinks Mel should consider. "It's the best investment we offer" the man said to Mel.
Mel turned to Flo and asked, "This guy is telling me about the best investment they offer, when should I buy it?"
Flo responded: "When donkey's fly." Flo went on to explain how she overheard the man talking to his friend who left just before Mel arrived. Flo said, pointing my way: "Ask him, he heard it too."
I mentioned the articles in IBD and the WSJ and how they called the investment deplorable, speculative and an imaginary story.
Realizing he was caught in a contradiction, the man turned to Mel and said "Hey - it's a good investment."
The minute you start making predictions based on random events, you are admitting that they are not random. That is one of the things that bothers me about the work being done on mitochondrial DNA to trace back and date human origins. In order to date the various branches of humans, they assume a constant mutation rate in the mitochondrial DNA. Is this not a contradiction to the random mutations that evolution claims? If there is a constant mutation rate does that imply design or a plan?
Perhaps your worry is manufactured: the igorance (or knowledge) of the philosophy of science has no bearing on the success of scientific research.
I think of it more along the lines of one of our posters ideas, "...mutations are always dangerous and result in the death of the organism...". If this belief were imposed on the biological sciences, all new drugs (including antibiotics) and diagnostic testing goes away. There are lots of ideas that the anti-science crowd could come up with. This is not a philosophical question IMHO.
This same debate takes place in logic, epistemology or law. The debate is similar for the reasons 1/1,000,000th% gives: "To have a process that requires evidence and objective evaluation"
The process is nothing more than the systemic arrangement of a set number of objects with a set number of methodologies. Whether it is one field or another, this style or mode will always have the character of limiting its field. The limitations imposed are a mode or style of thinking that is historically contingent. Whether this limiting feature should be called objectivity should be debated. Objectivity is also political concept.
especially the "theist' variety---'goners'!
Eldredge is saying two things which are both true. How does your story apply? Here are the statements:
1) The Marsh/AMNH presentation does not accurately portray what happened. Presentations based upon this are misleading.Note that the second statement actually supports the first, as an understanding of what is right helps greatly in spotting what is wrong. The second statement could be used to answer a reply of "How do you know that?" to the first statement.2) We have evidence for what happened.
Note also that I have supported my assertion that many others agree with what you're calling both sides of Eldredge's mouth, including myself personally. This is important. It means that your interpretation of Eldredge is a strawman which would make him about as Luddite as you are if correct. He isn't.
Why are you being so relentlessly, ineducably stupid? Do you have so few honest quotes that you need everything you can possibly defend? I've been watching you for a while now on several threads, digging through the Library of Congress to support your interpretation of a few quotes. It isn't about what one guy did or didn't say in the 1980s, whether he's Colin Patterson or Niles Eldredge. It's about what is true.
Your interpretation of everything, whether the fossils themselves or what evolutionists say about them, is totally at odds with modern science. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with horse evolution can spot what Eldredge is talking about in his quotes. Since you need help there, jennyp researched the context thoroughly for you on a thread you linked yourself. (However, you only linked your own reply, not her demolition of same).
There is no contradiction. Creo quote science is an exercise in Lying for the Lord. If it isn't beneath you, you should strive to improve yourself until it is.
Scientific American
But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
(Okay, so I, too, can play AndrewC.)
This is adequate evidence that your argument is in shambles. You bring me into your argument in which I have no interest. You attack me and not your debating opponent like some witch doctor piercing a voodoo doll. Your scholarship, if conducted the way you have this argument, is suspect.
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.