Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'
LiveScience.com ^ | 9/22/05 | Ker Than

Posted on 09/22/2005 8:25:42 PM PDT by Crackingham

A court case that begins Monday in Pennsylvania will be the first to determine whether it is legal to teach a controversial idea called intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent design, often referred to as ID, has been touted in recent years by a small group of proponents as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. ID proponents say evolution is flawed. ID asserts that a supernatural being intervened at some point in the creation of life on Earth.

Scientists counter that evolution is a well-supported theory and that ID is not a verifiable theory at all and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. The case is called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Prominent scientists Thursday called a teleconference with reporters to say that intelligent design distorts science and would bring religion into science classrooms.

"The reason this trial is so important is the Dover disclaimer brings religion straight into science classrooms," said Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the journal Science. "It distorts scientific standards and teaching objectives established by not only state of Pennsylvania but also leading scientific organizations of the United States."

"This will be first legal challenge to intelligent design and we'll see if they've been able to mask the creationist underpinnings of intelligent design well enough so that the courts might allow this into public school," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which co-hosted the teleconference.

AAAS is the world's largest general science society and the NCSE is a nonprofit organization committed to helping ensure that evolution remains a part of public school curriculums.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of concerned parents after Dover school board officials voted 6-3 last October to require that 9th graders be read a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution. Students were also referred to an intelligent design textbook to learn more information about the controversial idea. The Dover school district earlier this month attempted to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, but a federal judge ruled last week that the trial would proceed as scheduled. The lawsuit argues that intelligent design is an inherently religious argument and a violation of the First Amendment that forbids state-sponsored schools from funding religious activities.

"Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevorepublic; enoughalready; lawsuit; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 401-415 next last
To: RunningWolf
Is that where you guys call another poster names without pinging them, kinda like now?

No, it's a suggestion that someone be ignored.

You won't mind if I extend the courtesy to you too?

341 posted on 09/26/2005 10:43:19 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (I'm a victim, you're a victim, he's a victim, she's a victim, wouldn't you like to be a victim too?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; js1138; Dark Knight
I don't care whether you ignore me or not. Since all you have put up here in this thread is a lot of garbage.I was drawing attention to your style here. When I ignore a poster I don't find it necessary to taunt them at the same time.

Here is what you said to 1138 without pinging Dark Knight He's obviously a nutball. Virtual ignore on.

Spin it however you want, do enough spins with it, and you'll look like the screaming evo-chimp doing his back flips.

Wolf

342 posted on 09/26/2005 11:03:29 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Alamo-Girl
And the parameters of the debate that all these reporters will slot their stories into have been defined by the mendacious arguments of the Discovery Institute, who is driven by their fundamentally misguided fears about the collapse of civilization because of their flawed assumptions about the nature of morality.

Well pity the poor slobs then: reporters and (it seems reasonable to assume) judges are hardly the "best experts" of what properly constitutes "science."

You can characterize breaking events anyway you want to, jennyp. But the fact remains, ID does not depend on what the Discovery Institute has to say about it. I will not join you in engaging in a debate on the issue as long as you insist on presenting it on the basis of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness: The issue at stake is not DI, it's ID -- and the two are not identical.

Hopefully, SCOTUS will not engage in that fallacy when/if the Dover case comes before it.

343 posted on 09/26/2005 11:24:23 AM PDT by betty boop (Nature loves to hide. -- Heraclitusuote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
the Discovery Institute...

I just had the thought--if all the answers are already in the bible, what does the Discovery Institute hope to discover?

344 posted on 09/26/2005 11:29:12 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I might have been a little hard on you.


345 posted on 09/26/2005 11:31:39 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; jennyp; Alamo-Girl
I just had the thought--if all the answers are already in the bible, what does the Discovery Institute hope to discover?

I have no idea, Coyoteman: I do not carry a brief for DI, and I do not handle their PR. But regarding your question, I have two observations:

(1) The Bible is not a textbook.

(2) God -- being wholly extra-cosmic (that is, not a phenomenon within spacetime) is not an object for science, nor can be.

Thanks for writing!

346 posted on 09/26/2005 11:52:04 AM PDT by betty boop (Nature loves to hide. -- Heraclitusuote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: In veno, veritas

> so you made it up from your experiences

Well, that's a lie.

As I said, a number of surveys conducted over the years show that Creationism is effectively absent from those professionally trained in the hard sciences. It's virtually unknown amonst those trained in the paleontological and biological fields, for obvious reasons.

My own experiences don't enter into it.


347 posted on 09/26/2005 1:30:36 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Oh, I see. You're talking Creationism. That is different than ID.


348 posted on 09/26/2005 2:50:28 PM PDT by In veno, veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Virtual ignore off/

Perfessor, you can't argue anything, you ignore logic and reason remember!

You can't back off now.

You said something INCREDIBLY stupid.

Fess up!

Reason has nothing to do with science, it hasn't in decades, and you don't use it either.

>>js1138 is correct. Most scientists don't think about philosophy from one decade to the next. Philosophers spend a lot of time wondering how science can be explained, and undoubtedly it's an interesting question for them, but the impact on science and scientists has been truly minimal.<<

You said something very dumb, you thought because of your position and intellect you could defend it. And you can't.

Since your tactics are using your intellect and position to convince people of things, you are not to be believed...until you can show up with some logic or reason.

Which you have ignored for decades...

LOL

You'll answer. You have to. Or you'll retreat from this thread. Remember, you may set a precedent. Think about it. Go into a scientific closet and use some logic. I will accept an apology.

DK


349 posted on 09/26/2005 5:45:35 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: In veno, veritas

> You're talking Creationism. That is different than ID.

As pointed out before... no, it's not. If ID is only used to explain away *some* events in the history of evolution, it's useless. If it's used to explain away them all, then it's Creationism.


350 posted on 09/26/2005 8:26:24 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
Well we see what Physicists like Hawkins do when the laws of physics break down.

But what do our Freeper Physicists do when the laws of physics break down.
Well, they might call you a name for one thing, and it wont be a nice one either.

I'm sorry Freeper Physicists, I didn't mean to take down your universe so quick. ;)

Wolf
351 posted on 09/26/2005 8:42:42 PM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Well, a miracle has happened on this thread.

Right Wing Professor has been bested, and he retreated. It's a miracle, and this will burn in his heart forever. He said something stupid and was caught, like a kid.

He will never be able to show up on an EVO thread without wondering if his collosal mistake will show up on it.

He denied scientists use reason.

What a maroon!!!

DK

Bugs Bunny would be proud!


352 posted on 09/26/2005 9:49:06 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight; Right Wing Professor
Well he should be pinged even though 'their side' rarely does this, then it is his choice to ignore or not.

Time to mix up some metaphors ;)

BASS

And so in the great Cosmo-Evo Pantheon of high level debate on the Free Republic, a great evo-prognosticator came up from under the lily pads, and hit the bait like a mad largemouth bass on a hot summer day. And like the bass, he could not retreat, or let it go.

Wolf

353 posted on 09/26/2005 10:21:28 PM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

I really would have accepted an apology.

DK

I don't believe RWP and JS1138 are still here. I'd be replying to a nonexistant throng. They took a dumb position, and defended it. It was hilarious when they retreated. But thanks as always.

That is a great picture.

I'll have to remember it.

Thanks.


354 posted on 09/26/2005 10:48:53 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; betty boop; Dark Knight; Right Wing Professor
Thank you both so much for your very engaging posts!

Truly there is a clear difference between the intelligent design hypothesis and the intelligent design movement. Just like there is a difference between the abiogenesis hypothesis and the "free thinkers" movement.

Correlation is not causation.

If both the "Nature did it!" and "God did it!" people would kindly hush, we'd get some science done around here.

jennyp: I understand that you two are trying to defend ID on some sort of rarefied philosophical level. (At least I THINK I understand. :-)

This perception lies at the root of the problem – and the “victory laps” being taken here at the demise of this thread.

Moreover, this is an overarching issue – not just an intelligent design hypothesis issue.

You see, the Ernst Bayrs of the world would like very much for biology to be deemed an “autonomous science”. But one cannot construct fences around the discipline to keep the physicists out. Biological systems must always obey the physical laws.

Likewise, physics cannot construct fences around the discipline to keep philosophy out. There is order in the universe – if this were not so, there could be no physical laws.

The Greek philosophers knew this as did their Judeo/Christian counterparts. Both called it philosophy (or more appropriately, episteme) – and science and math were a part of it – not separate from it. The one side (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) approached it from reason – the other side (Paul, Timothy, etc.) from faith.

But they were both looking at the same thing: the order in the universe.

It has only been in the most recent times that man deigns to separate science from philosophy and worse, tries to elevate science as more sure knowledge. And the fracturing of knowledge continues apace, as the Bayrs try to carve out islands which do not actually exist in the body of knowledge.

So here we are – people like betty boop and I – and a very great many mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and philosophers – labeled as trying to impose philosophy on science.

Hardly!

If biology etc. continues this march of scientific materialism, each discovery made – albeit useful for technological progress – will be tunnel-visioned, misleading and potentially, false. They will be valid only on the illusionary islands of autonomy.

The example I used earlier of pi would apply in this case. One could observe a string of numbers in the extension of pi and if the extension is all that he can see in his worldview, he will conclude that the string of numbers is random. But if he steps back and realizes that those numbers are the result of the algorithm itself, then he will know that the string of numbers are not random but highly determined.

This field of view is what the mathematicians and physicists – and yes, the intelligent design hypothesis – has brought to the table of evolution biology.

Biology must throw away the autonomous science maps which declare “there be dragons” beyond the corporeals.

If it is not done because of the intelligent design hypothesis - it will nevertheless be done because the mathematicians and physicists have already landed on the island.

Meanwhile, the theologians and philosophers will patiently wait on the other side of the mountain of scientific knowledge - ready to welcome everyone when they finally affirm what they have known to be true for millennia.

355 posted on 09/27/2005 9:05:00 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Alamo-Girl; Dark Knight
The DI is the animating force for ID as a movement.

Hello jennyp! A "movement" is a political force; it isn't science. And, I might add, DI isn't doing anything that the scientistic popularizers of neo-Darwinism aren't doing -- e.g., the Dawkins/Dennett transatlantic axis -- which is not to excuse either "side." Political polemics isn't science.

It is a very great misfortune that issues in science are being deliberated in the courts, IMO.

More in a minute....

356 posted on 09/27/2005 9:55:39 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It is a very great misfortune that issues in science are being deliberated in the courts.

I agree. Unfortunately that is where everything seems to end up.

Wolf
357 posted on 09/27/2005 10:11:38 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; jennyp; marron; Dark Knight; Right Wing Professor; js1138; Coyoteman
There is order in the universe – if this were not so, there could be no physical laws.

Indeed, Alamo-Girl -- if this were not so, the universe would be wholly unintelligible.

Thank you so much for this beautiful, insightful, elegant post/essay!!!

p.s.: Ernst Mayr's proposal that biology ought to be regarded as an autonomous science is a non-starter, IMHO. How on earth could such a thing be reconciled to the (highly questionable in my view; but no matter) supposition that "matter in its motions" will ultimately, finally be found wholly to account for the emergence of biological organisms (e.g., the hypothesis of abiogenesis of which folks like Dawkins et al. seem to be so fond)? It seems one can't have it both ways....

358 posted on 09/27/2005 10:13:07 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
p.s.: Ernst Mayr's proposal that biology ought to be regarded as an autonomous science is a non-starter, IMHO. How on earth could such a thing be reconciled to the (highly questionable in my view; but no matter) supposition that "matter in its motions" will ultimately, finally be found wholly to account for the emergence of biological organisms (e.g., the hypothesis of abiogenesis of which folks like Dawkins et al. seem to be so fond)? It seems one can't have it both ways....

We can calculate the structures of chemical compounds and their course of their reactions to essentially arbitrary degrees of accuracy by quantum physics methods. Nonetheless, chemistry survives, and is very different from physics, because the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The laws of chemistry are still useful - far more useful, when it comes to figuring out how an addition reaction will go, for example, than rigorous quantum calculations.

359 posted on 09/27/2005 10:18:52 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; Alamo-Girl; jennyp
Unfortunately that is where everything seems to end up.

Indeed. It's quite depressing, Wolf: Is there anything at all that's immune from politicization these days? And, once politicized, that doesn't inevitably wind up in a court of law?

As if your average judge can ascertain the merits of a scientific dispute. He can call all the expert witnesses he wants to. But there are at least two problems with that. One, if the experts stick to the science, the judge probably wouldn't understand their testimony. Two, if they go with polemics to "win," the judge will be swayed by emotional arguments by default. I just don't see how science is served by any of this....

Sigh.... :^)

360 posted on 09/27/2005 10:24:31 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 401-415 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson