Crikey!!!!!
Posted on 08/11/2005 8:28:30 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Nelson brings intelligent design debate to Australia
August 10, 2005 - 7:47PM
Education Minister Brendan Nelson supports the teaching of a controversial new theory of creationism, but only if it is balanced by the instruction of established science.
President George Bush has started a debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in school by suggesting a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.
It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.
Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of intelligent design, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.
"Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don't think that it should be," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.
"In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.
"Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think that's fine."
Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.
Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.
AAP
|
This is just a critique of natural selection. It is not a biology course.
I want to know what the content of a biology course would be if run by ID proponents. How would they answer questions about the age of the earth and the significance of the geologic column? What kind of research would they propose?
They might consider what science actually is. Teach that and let these other issues fall out wherever.
The only major difference is that it would include a unit or two devoted to the stuff I listed in post 18. Some material, obviously, would have to be deleted in order to make room for it, and that's where the harm is.
Filling class time with Rubbish is an exceedingly easy thing to do. I know this from first-hand experience.
Research proposals? None, but we're talking about high school classes which rarely invovle such things. They obviously would be in trouble if they tried to set up a graduate program, but I doubt they're ever going to do that.
BTW, does Behe do any actual research any more, or does he just spend all his time spouting ID propaganda?
depends on your point of view, LJ.
A lot of folks would be more likely to say that it is spreading like the miasmic stench of an ill-maintained public port-o-let.
I know about Behe, but I want to hear from the ID proponents themselves, on FR and in the school boards, that they accept the facto evolution if not natural selection, and that they accept the geologic timeline of mainstream science.
In short, I want them to tell me what it is that they want taught, not just that they have a technical dispute with a particular theory. I am asking them to affirm those things that ID shares with mainstream science.
According to the Discovery Institute's website (they're the principal propaganda arm of the ID movement) their whole "theory" is that ID is a "better" explanation than evolution. This seems to accept that evolution is, after all, a viable explanation. But their "explanation," they say, is better.
One thing they don't share with mainstream science is an appreciation of Occam's Razor. Also, they appear to have no concern for even pretending they have a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. In other words, they don't have even the beginnings of a science. Nor do they care.
All very good, but I want to hear from ID porponents themselves that they accept those parts of biology that are firmly grounded in physics. Actually I could name one wh has affirmed this, and I than think of several others who do not actively dispute the age of the earth.
There are some very cagey folks who seem to have training in biochemistry and seem to have private ideas about the source of variation that drives evolution.
But I am looking for someone in the ID camp who will make a positive statement about what elements are shared by ID and the mainstream.
You probably have a long wait ahead of you. Anyway, from the Discovery Institute's website, this is what they say:
Questions about Intelligent DesignIn other words, they accept that evolution happens (more or less) but they're mystics.1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
Source: Top Questions.
How much does evolution have?
Oh, well that's all right, then. Why stop there, though? What do you say we teach pig-latin as long as it's balanced by still teaching English? And how about the Hollow Earth theory, balanced, of course, by a dose of geology? Toss in a geography course that splits its time between the U.S. and Atlantis and you've got a full curriculum. Oh, but you better save room for the Driver's Ed/Flying Carpet Piloting class.
Darn. I seem to have misplaced my Rectilineator.
Remember the simple question, "How old is the earth?" and how it drove certain person into a frenzy?
I want to hear for ID advocates that they accept the core findings of physical science. Or have them admit they don't.
I have been asking for some statement from ID proponents for four days now, with no response. I am beginning to suspect they do not accept ID as it is being put forward by the science literate.
Most of the people who claim to support ID do so only because they think they're bashing Darwin. Basically, they don't agree with the tepid formulation of the Discovery Institute. But as is generally known, it's the tip of the wedge to drive science out of the classrooms.
One Nation, Under the Designer. The true goals of the ID movement.
Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Replacing science with theism.
The Wedge at Work. The Discovery Institute's war against reason.
The "Wedge Document": "So What?" The Discovery Institute defends the Wedge document.
Crikey!!!!!
Well, all I can state is my own POV. I am definitely *not* in the young earth camp, that's for sure.
The real problem with Darwinist evolutionary theory (besides the fact that I consider it erroneous) is that it is based on the premise that the earth, indeed the universe, is accidental, and therefore purposeless and soulless. Some people kind of tack on the idea that, well, maybe God used evolution as way to create. But the basic evolutionary premise is without any plan, purpose, or God in control.
And the premise that life is in essence meaningless, purposeless, with no Supreme Godhead, is destroying what makes human civilization human. People who see no eternal future, no eternal justice, only a firefly-like second of eat/sleep/sex and then die, are hopeless people.
You probably know that I am not a doctrinaire kind of person; I respect any religion and any sincere practitioner of any religion that teaches basic moral precepts. But the concept that life has meaning and purpose, that the individual is more than a machine which will drop dead, and that there is a Supreme Being in charge of it all is vital to human existence. And the proponents of evolution deny these truths.
So that's my POV, fwiw.
You make an assumption: that atheism automatically equates to nihilism. I know many atheists, I know no nihilists.
Can you describe a point of view that science could adopt that doesn't assume natural causes for nearly everything?
The word "accidental" has connotations that just don't fit the mission or methodology of science.
Most people who accept science would argue that the fact that Mary dies in a terrorist attack while her co-worker Suzie stays home with a cold to be a stochastic event, not implying some judgement by God. This is not a provable hypothesis, but it does illustrate a philsophical temperament.
In the realm of science there are more sophisticated versions of this. We have all kinds of statistical tests for determining or ruling out correlation. I would think that if ID wanted to have a scientific research program, it would try to demonstrate some correlation between variation and need, some indication that variation anticapates need.
I am troubled by the fact that ID stands in the wings claiming that mainstream science has not explained everything, but hasn't put forward even a proposal for a research program.
moreover, you ignore distinct counterexamples: Bushido, for one.
Very strict moral and ethical code based on the notion that life is fleeting, finite, and all there is.
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.