Why, yes. Let the schools teach any damned-fool thing. Keeping superstition out of science class... why that's just downright unAmerican!
Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
It's amazing that these Darwinian Fundamentalists claim they're for science only to turn around and try to destroy any contrary theories or evidence. They're really getting desperate, the ID movement really has them rattled.
****
September 30, 2005
It’s happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.
This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. . . . Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I’ve ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer”—which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”
But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.
It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren’t the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate—the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.
But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It’s a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he’s a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that’s exactly what’s happening. And here’s the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he’s doing is researching and writing about it.
Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don’t be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. That’s fair enough. But that’s what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.
But under our system of government, school curricula are. We've did pretty well for a long time without judges second-guessing those decisions. If you don't think school curricula have the right material, the proper thing is to persuade the decisionmakers (i.e., the people) otherwise. Getting the courts involved is the leftist route.
EXACTLY.. Follow the money.. on both sides.. LoL..
Academia is batting zero on the free anything issue..
Except for free government grants..
Most all academics are socialists.. could be most "Evos" are too.. in some mannar.. Most "Evos" would be against local control of school curricula... that is, let the locals control what is taught.. Federal control serves the "Evos" well..
A Free Republic and the "Evos" are not on the same page, always.. A fact seldom mentioned on these kinds of threads.. Gutting federal government does not serve the "Evos" agenda well.. Are "EVOS" also RINOs?.. maybe.. unless they are confused.. Surely some are..
You are sounding like a pretty good liberal there. Anything else you would care to not let people hear? Perhaps only you and your kind know what is best for us? Give it up. If you and your buddies are really conservatives as you claim, you wouldn't care if people are taught different viewpoints. It is called critical thinking, something, once again, liberals do not do.
This is rich.
So who should decide, Leno?
Your neighborhood elitist educator?
The elected local school board?
If the ACLU is against it, it must be of some good.
You have some gall bringing facts to bear in a thread like this...
;)
Actually they do, see Who is Adam? and Origins of Life. I'm sure the Darwinian Talking Points Newsletter didn't tell you that.
It also probably didn't tell you that scholars have answered the simpleton "Who exactly is this designer supposed to be? What is the origin of the designer? Surely if the designer designed us, then he must have a designer that designed him, or we are back to square one." over and over. Look it up.
Ever heard of an uncaused cause?
The issue is that science has pushed the atheist, random assumption to the wall and it does not work any more.
Educators who are trained in a given field should decide what constitutes scholarship. Otherwise education is a sham.
IOW there was no clue as to what the source of the error was, but further analysis showed what it must be like, later confirmed.
The fact that ID (in its short time of existence as such) has not demonstrated the nature of the designer does not make it inherently unscientific. One could argue that the nature of the designer can never be determined, but that would be an unwarranted statement, begging the question whether the designer is indeed supernatural.
And for those who continue with the straw man accusation against ID that it is disguised biblical creationism, the book Uncommon Dissent, a compilation of essays on ID contains the writings of Christians, mystics, agnostics and atheists.
Chromium and copper don't follow the aufbau principle! Valence theory is a fraud! Teach the controversy!
"Just stick a little parenthetical in saying "here a miracle occurs" and hope no one notices?"
Actually, given the probabilities involved in the "goo to you by way of the zoo" theory that is pretty much what evolutionary scientist have done.
Sheesh, and you guys are bedwetting over the idea that creationists make conservatism look bad?
How would you feel about Scientology being taught in a science class?
Now there's a fine impartial source.
What's next? Citing a Code Pink press release comment on G W Bush?
If all theories deserve to be taught, then how about holocaust revisionism in history class? Should we teach that uncritically alongside the mainstream view of WWII history? If not, then how can you call yourself a conservative? ;-)
I don't think anyone has said accept all of ID or none, if anything what's being said is accept all of Darwinism there is no other possible answer. That's no different then the way Galileo was treated by the church. Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory, it's become at the least a philosophy of life and for some a religion.
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.