Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:34 PM PDT by dukeman
The Dover Area School district in Pennsylvania will soon defend its policy to require ninth grade students to hear a short statement about “intelligent design” before biology lessons on evolution.
Dover is believed to have been the first school system in the nation to require students to hear about the controversial concept. The school adopted the policy in October 2004, after which teachers were required to read a statement that says intelligent design is different than Darwin’s theory of evolution and refers students to a text book on intelligent design to get more information.
“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.
The civil trial is set to take place on Sept. 26 and will only be the latest chapter in a long-running legal debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The controversy over intelligent design in public schools has received national attention with statements by President Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class, along with the recent approval by the Kansas Board of Education to give preliminary approval to science standards that allow criticism of evolution.
Intelligent design theory states that some parts of the natural world are so complex that the most reasonable explanation is that they were made as products of an intelligent cause, rather than random mutation and natural selection.
In contrast to "creationism," which states specifically that God is the creator, intelligent design is more general, simply saying that life did not come about by chance. The "designer" could be anything or anyone, though many place God in the position of the designer.
Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of “irreducible complexity” shows that there is an intelligent creator. He cites the example of a bacterial flagellum, an appendage to a bacterium that allows it to move about.
"Whenever we see such complex, functional mechanical systems, we always infer that they were designed. ... It is a conclusion based on physical evidence," AP reported Behe as saying in testimony before the state legislative panel in June where he was asked to talk about intelligent design.
Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.
In a 1999 assessment of intelligent design, the National Academy of sciences said the theory was not science.
''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS stated.
The controversy over Intelligent Design has been so highly talked about that the debate was also featured last month as a cover story for Time Magazine. In the feature article, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) President Albert Mohler, Jr., tackled the controversy with three other scholars in a forum addressing the question “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?” Behe was also among those whose views were addressed in the article.
That's because more than 2/3 of the general public doesn't have a complex understanding of biology.
***Then the subject matter should be reserved for complex biological systems, which would be 2nd year bio majors in college.
Attempting to use social arguments against scientific explanations is a gross misapplication of both.
***Ok, where is the misapplication?
And that's exactly the wrong way to discuss evolution or any other scientific theory.
***But it is exactly the right way to discuss where and how and when such a morally disturbing theory should be taught to students.
Scientific explanations are not invalidated just because people don't like the implications, though there are a lot of creationists who seem to think that this is the case.
***True enough.
Because, as has been explained before, there is no "controversy" within science.
***Then you're just restating, so I'll restate: It looks like a scientific controversy to me and 2/3 of the general public, which is significant in a social policy discussion. There was an interesting line in the TV series "Law & Order"... "if enough people think it's about race, then it's about race". If enough people think it's about a scientific controversy, then it is about a scientific controversy. There wasn't enough hard science for it to be a slam-dunk when it was presented to that smart guy who is president & has a Harvard education & all that, so he did not see enough reason to relinquish his confirmatory bias. He sees a scientific controversy, I see one, and so do 2/3 of the general public, all of whom are interested in what should and should not be taught to kids in classrooms.
The case for ID is based upon a gross misunderstanding or misstating of biology.
***Then it won't last long in the real hustle & bustle world of genuine science. The case for astrology is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the effects of gravity, but we don't see the president of the US pushing to have astrology taught in science classes. Those IDers sure are pesky with their counterpoints, that speed of light/fine structure constant thing, and lots of scientific articles to read.
Meaning that there's no purpose in putting it in a science classroom. Why teach non-science in a science class?
***I see plenty of purpose. It serves as a good punching bag, if nothing else. The fact is that a lot of scientific work in this evo/abio side was kind of sloppy before the criticism started pouring in. I agree that we shouldn't be teaching non-science in a science class, and I see evo/abio as a philosophical conclusion based upon science, but not science. Neither side belongs in a science classroom with their conclusions. And when either side is taught, they should be side-by-side and let students see for themselves. One way I look at evo is kinda like when I first ran across imaginary numbers -- the square root of negative one. Even though it doesn't really exist, there's a whole branch of math based upon it, and it generates some very useful & interesting results such that in some electrical engineering pursuits, it's better to look at it from that perspective than from the time domain perspective. With this math, 2 + 2= 4, yes, but it is seen as 2 + 0*i + 2 + 0*i = 4 + 0*i. And the evo/abio philosophy, when you look at it from an inductive spiritual perspective, comes up bankrupt. The very next thing in that perspective is to "know the tree by its fruits" and start searching for contingent social results, whether good or bad. And folks start seeing some nasty things associated with accidentalism.
This is another attempt at someone who has only heard a smidgen of media-filtered information who now thinks that they have a deep understanding of relativity.
***There it is. It didn't take long, did it? Thank you very much for your ridicule and displaying your genuine attitude. You can go on with the comforting knowledge that you are a true holy warrior for your chosen philosophy/religion. This is a social policy discussion; it does not MATTER if I have a deep understanding of relativity (or even if I think I have a deep understanding of it). For your colleagues' sake, I'll spell it out just a little bit. Let's say the pres took a position that Astrology should be taught side by side with evolution. In one stroke, it becomes a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). With responses like yours, you really let the cat out of the bag. But… come on… you're just toying with me, right? You know that I'm not a biochemist so you're just moving in for the kill like a Viking kitty… ;-)
No, it isn't. Please try to do some research on the topic before making such dismissive statements.
***Yes, it is. Is that what the level of discussion has digressed to, 2nd grade antics of yes it is, no it isn’t? I have done some research on the topic and I started entering some crevo threads. I have realized that I don’t need to be a biochemist to engage in social policy discussions. Once you start going into policy-land, politics takes a front seat and guys like GWB have their say. Scientists start to be looked at from the prism of what the benefit is to society. GWB must have consulted top-level science advisors, and apparently it was not enough to remove his confirmatory bias. After consulting his science advisers on a public policy issue, George chose differently than how you and they see it; if mainstream science was answering ID properly at that point, the pres probably would have seen it in a more scientific light. Mainstream science failed at that point. Take it up with George if you don't like it. When I look through the mass of material, I see a big scientific controversy with eggheads on one side ridiculing eggheads on the other side.
It is something I posted previously:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1475252/posts
Do you believe in accidentalism? (Creation vs. evolution)
I have a philosophical bias against what I call the "haps": The root word of Happen, Happy, Happenstance is hap, which is another word for luck. I heard it over & over again in NON-SCIENCE classes that we got here by chance, we evolved by chance, and that it was "proven" science. I presently think the evo haps stuff is baloney, the abiogenesis haps stuff is even more baloney, and that all of this stuff belongs in a philosophy class, where there is a constant dialog about inductive pursuits, what you call "something we don't know is true".
So you've decided you don't like evolution based on what you heard about it from people who know as little about it as you do.
Great. Just great.
What's so wrong with testing religious beliefs?
Not a thing, as long as you don't mind every religion "falsified".
***I don't. Like I stated before in a post to you, I think even Jesus didn't like religion. He called the religious leaders of his day, "vipers".
Sure there's some archaeological evidence that's interesting to several religions in the middle east. But I'm sure there's archaeological evidence that Jim Jones used Koolaid too. It does nothing to verify the existence of any deity.
***As we discussed prior to this, it verifies the fact that someone CLAIMED deity. The verification of deity status is an inductive pursuit. That's where people come in with their religious presuppositions & baggage.
Quite a bit more evidence of Roman "gods" than anything relating to Christianity.
***Great. Let's see some of it. Did any Roman claim to be God in the flesh and convince lotsa followers that it was true? Show me the history.
At least the Jews have the wailing wall and other archaeological evidence that there was an old faith (and nothing that proves a deity). Christians have just about zip.
***Very wrong. And I'm surprised to see you posting that after our discussion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1478794/posts
Why are you going off on christianity? You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Notice that we never really pursued Hirohito's claim to deity, because it was taken to be rooted in history. What you do with that information is your own thing.
When you get science to invent a machine to tell you that God is present, and which "god" he is, then let me know.
***As soon as you are intellectually honest enough to investigate the historical trilemma, you'll have what you need. It's all there.
For one thing, it wastes valuable class time.
For another thing, intelligent design proponents use a lot of misinformation to advance their argument. Filling young minds with slick yet invalid and misinformed arguments is seldom beneficial to their education.
If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water.
It doesn't; that's precisely the point.
I wish the Catholic Church would copyright saints' names to prevent such things.
"us all" Love it.
If you aren't interested in religion, you will have no problem with ID being required to show som[e] actual research, and being required to put forward some theory about the motives, objectives and limitations of the designer. Something that can be tested.
***I really am not interested in religion. So why did I have to sit through NON-Science classes and listen to professors bloviate about their haps-based "viewpoints" which are philosophies at best, religions at worst? None of it should be presented in any class room EXCEPT for an origins class, where both sides can hammer it out. If one side is lacking in scientific thought, so be it. It will be obvious. I've heard it said on some crevo threads that the creationists don't police their own. Well, the haps folks don't police their own. Otherwise, why are so many college students being subjected to this stuff in NON-SCIENCE classes? And, it's a copout to claim that it's "only a scientific pursuit". Bull cookies. It's obvious to everyone that there are moral, social, sociological, religious, and inductive implications to the haps side, and it is good and right to limit any evil that results from those implications.
I assume you are referring to the skeptic, the patron saint of science.
I would pick a differen school or different major if I didn't like what was being taught.
No, St. Thomas Moore, the patron saint of lawyers, martyred by Henry VIII.
The St. Thomas Moore law center is engaging in this ID crusade in his name. I don't think he'd like it if he were alive today.
Your link only has two references between us, and nothing relevant to archeology and religion. I do remember talking with someone about Hirohito's claimed deity. I guess that was you in some other thread.
>>>>When you get science to invent a machine to tell you that God is present, and which "god" he is, then let me know.
***As soon as you are intellectually honest enough to investigate the historical trilemma, you'll have what you need. It's all there.
Nice change of subject. I bring up a hypothetical machine and you reply about history.
I have seen no archaeological evidence of any deity. I've not studied the subject of non Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but I have seen references that some questionable mentions of Jesus existed. But that's it.
And it still does not speak to any real "scientific" evidence that any deity exists.
The original point on this issue was a challenge if religious folks push the ID subject, then religion will begin to be challenged by science (some professors bring up the subject today, what I'm talking about is a sustained, affirmative falsification of all things religious). I think this will happen, and religion will not fare well.
Is he the model for the aphorism that he who defends himself has an ass for a lawyer and a fool for a client?
So you've decided you don't like evolution based on what you heard about it from people who know as little about it as you do. Great. Just great.
***Oh, good one. Ridicule. You must be a true holy warrior. Take comfort. I decided I don't like evolution based upon several things, and yes, one of them was from how I heard about it and the fact that they were abusing their authority when they proceeded with it. It is a case of haps folks not policing their own. But some of it was on the basis of reading both sides of the controversy, which I enjoy doing. Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward. Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided. If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So why don't we discuss this social policy issue on its merits?
Evolution is "social policy"? Wow. You're mixed up.
"But some of it was on the basis of reading both sides of the controversy, which I enjoy doing. Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward."
Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
"Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided."
Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
"If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back."
The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
I you have studied evolution and used to be an evolutionist, then you could, no doubt, present a good summary of the best case to be made for evolution. You do that and post it, and I'll do the same for ID. We'll see who has the best understanding of the other's position.
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.