`Intelligent design' ban is proposed (Democrats to the Rescue!!)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 17 Feb 2006 | Tribune News Services

[gobucks]

MADISON, Wis. -- Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to ban public schools from teaching "intelligent design" as science, saying "pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom.

The proposal is the first of its kind in the country, the National Conference of State Legislatures said.

The measure would require science curriculums to describe only natural processes and follow definitions from the National Academy of Sciences.

Its sponsor, Rep. Terese Berceau, acknowledged the measure faces an uphill fight in a legislature where Republicans control both houses.

Berceau said science education is under attack across the country as proponents of intelligent design promote alternatives to Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design holds that details in nature are so complex they are best explained as products of a designer, not only unguided natural selection of mutations as with Darwin.

Critics say intelligent design is thinly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science. In December, a federal judge in Pennsylvania outlawed a school district's policy of reading a statement to classes citing intelligent design options.

[gobucks]

"But be honest -- if it turned out that the truth did happen to result in more liberal votes than conservative ones, would you find that a good reason to suppress it, or fail to stand up for it in the face of falsehoods? Really? Because if so, wouldn't that make us as bad as the worst of the liberals and the Islamists? Don't they care more about political power than about truth? Don't they care more about expediency than about being right?

I'm not willing to sacrifice reality, or honesty, or being correct, for the sake of increased political muscle. I hope you aren't either."

This is a really curious end to your post. The facts are rather plain: Islamists don't believe for a second in allowing competing ideas into the minds of kids. No where do you see this message from Christians. However, liberals are a lot like this.

Evolution is not 'the truth' by the way. I like your adherence to 'the truth', but unless I miss my mark, there is no way you actually believe an absolute standard by which to say 'truth exists' even exists. Correct?

As for reality, my reality is clear: I obtained a degree in Science, based on numerical flow models using finite difference methods. I understand the power of math. I also fully understand how to abuse boundary conditions such that the results are publishable.

By what standard do I refrain from that abuse, if I know I won't get caught? Another way to ask this is plain: how does one teach 'honor'?? I'd sincerely, SINCERELY be willing to devour links you may have at the ready on that topic.

I find it very interesting you equate the expediency of the Islamists and Liberals with what the Creationist and I.D. types are trying to do. It is over the top, for I.D. types, especaially are not trying to ban evolution.

By the way, that's a golf term, over the top. It normally results in a slice.

And if evolution is actually TRUE, that what we see is 'all that there is', then by definition, I would be irrational to see my self as any thing but an entity geared to survive and pass my genes on. If I really thought it was true, I would act on it.

In fact, for years, I did. Then I discovered Gravity. Hard to quantify this thing I discovered. Certainly I have trouble coming up w/ a good math equation to describe it. 1+1=3 is my best stab at it.


"I appreciate the suggestion, but really, I doubt I'd find great philosophical revelations in knocking a ball around with a stick. "

You are correct if you are merely knocking it around. But, knocking a ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible? That experience is not for the faint of heart, nor weak of mind.

For those who actually persevere? I testify your doubt is badly informed by your lack of experience. Mr. I., you should still be in good enough health despite 30 years in your field, to walk 18 holes at a par 3 golf course. To hit the ball, as many times as it takes until you hear that sound, 18 times, of the ball thunking into the cup.

I promise the first round won't provide revelations. But by the 10th round or so, the revelations will begin to manifest themselves, and you'll see a Plato in you that you never knew was there...

It's all a question of this: what is imagination made of? Be honest Mr. I, and answer that question.

[Ichneumon]

Khan is entitled to his (her?) opinion, but that's still not an accurate description of what happened in the El Tejon case, nor why. Nor is it an accurate description of what is and is not allowed in schools.

[gobucks]

I was going to do that, but oh boy, you did it so much better...

[gobucks]

Actually, there are more and more articles out there making this point, and that string theorists are about to be put on notice .... that is if the definition of 'science' is actually taken over by lawyers as seems to be the case..

[gobucks]

Those horrid overseas folks who get 'pure education'.... what a myth.

[starbase]

Well, I don't want to put words in the man's mouth, but here's the exchange, I think anyone might get tired of being bludgeoned, so I might just drop the topic as well:

(#185)Havoc:

No, I didn't misrepresent the ages of anything. I refered to something that is said to be misrepresented by someone else. Apparently, that is equivelent to lying on some planet in this universe - which I guess would make Bush a liar; but, we must compartmentalize and esteem the two differently to save face.. lol. Next question.

In fact, I copied you to post #181 (my original question to Havoc) of that same thread, but we're all busy, so it's easy to lose track.

And BTW here's my understanding of the fossil record (before I've read your links, which I'm still maneouvering towards!!)

[stands2reason]

Why do you assume those who are pro-evolution are pro- forced public schooling or anti-homeschooling? That is a false assumption.

[gobucks]

"Your reference to translations and the KGB mean nothing to me..."

That is a very sad thing to see typed. Your office must be on one of the upper floors indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers

[gobucks]

And as for me believing that you might be one of the folks who is false flagged here ... whether I believe it or not makes no difference. Your posts are disciplined, and thus, if you are a false flag type, you'll never get banned.

[Ichneumon]

["But be honest -- if it turned out that the truth did happen to result in more liberal votes than conservative ones, would you find that a good reason to suppress it, or fail to stand up for it in the face of falsehoods? Really? Because if so, wouldn't that make us as bad as the worst of the liberals and the Islamists? Don't they care more about political power than about truth? Don't they care more about expediency than about being right? I'm not willing to sacrifice reality, or honesty, or being correct, for the sake of increased political muscle. I hope you aren't either."]

This is a really curious end to your post. The facts are rather plain: Islamists don't believe for a second in allowing competing ideas into the minds of kids. No where do you see this message from Christians.

Oh?

Evolution is not 'the truth' by the way.

And you know this how?

I like your adherence to 'the truth', but unless I miss my mark, there is no way you actually believe an absolute standard by which to say 'truth exists' even exists. Correct?

Incorrect.

As for reality, my reality is clear: I obtained a degree in Science, based on numerical flow models using finite difference methods. I understand the power of math. I also fully understand how to abuse boundary conditions such that the results are publishable. By what standard do I refrain from that abuse, if I know I won't get caught?

You can never know you won't get caught.

Another way to ask this is plain: how does one teach 'honor'??

The old fashioned way -- by teaching the consequences of the alternative.

I'd sincerely, SINCERELY be willing to devour links you may have at the ready on that topic.

It hardly seems the sort of thing that requires extensive documentation.

I find it very interesting you equate the expediency of the Islamists and Liberals with what the Creationist and I.D. types are trying to do.

Actually, that's not what I said. I was not equating them. *You* were the one who was asking whether teaching the evidence was "helpful" to conservative voting rates or not. Thus my question to *you* about whether that was really your primary concern -- if like a liberal or an Islamist, you would abandon knowledge, promote ignorance of it, if that would "help your cause".

It is over the top, for I.D. types, especaially are not trying to ban evolution.

Not all of them perhaps, but you're naive if you think that there aren't a significant number who would do so if they could, and who work to achieve the same result by dishonrable means other than outright bans.

And if evolution is actually TRUE, that what we see is 'all that there is', then by definition,

Yet again, I find myself having to point out the most elementary fact: Evolution does *not* rule out the existence of god/gods/supernatural/etc., nor require their non-existence in any way.

I would be irrational to see my self as any thing but an entity geared to survive and pass my genes on. If I really thought it was true, I would act on it.

Then you really don't understand it.

In fact, for years, I did. Then I discovered Gravity. Hard to quantify this thing I discovered. Certainly I have trouble coming up w/ a good math equation to describe it. 1+1=3 is my best stab at it.

Um.. Ooookay...

["I appreciate the suggestion, but really, I doubt I'd find great philosophical revelations in knocking a ball around with a stick. "]

You are correct if you are merely knocking it around. But, knocking a ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible? That experience is not for the faint of heart, nor weak of mind.

I have other ways to challenge myself.

It's all a question of this: what is imagination made of? Be honest Mr. I, and answer that question.

The exploration of possibilities.

[mlc9852]

I just don't understand why after all these years of science promoting TOE, so many people still reject it.

The public is more accepting of homosexuality than evolution.

[Ichneumon]

Actually, there are more and more articles out there making this point, and that string theorists are about to be put on notice ....

They have no need to worry.

that is if the definition of 'science' is actually taken over by lawyers as seems to be the case..

It isn't.

[Coyoteman]

.... that is if the definition of 'science' is actually taken over by lawyers as seems to be the case..

Isn't it the case that the lawyers and judges are involved only to stop the ID (and before that CS) proponents from teaching their specific view of religion as science?

[Cvengr]

Interesting that he recommends the same method that the policies on FR prohibit, isn't it..

[DoNotDivide]

The teaching of the junk science "Macro Evolution" is reason enough to keep one's child out of a government school.

[gobucks]

ME: Another way to ask this is plain: how does one teach 'honor'??

YOU: The old fashioned way -- by teaching the consequences of the alternative.

ME: I'd sincerely, SINCERELY be willing to devour links you may have at the ready on that topic.

YOU: It hardly seems the sort of thing that requires extensive documentation.

I'm sorry to see this typed too. Most folks don't understand honor. They understand reputation. But not honor. Fame, yes. Integrity, no. Someone from your side of the fence would do well to know why honor is important, and how it can be inculcated into our youth.

And honor doesn't just appear, unlike the way mold will grow as a consequence of unplugging the refridgerator.

Honor has an origin. But you don't have links for that topic, fine.

You said I was incorrect regarding your outlook about absolute truth. Ok. Do you have links which discuss your understanding about what Truth is, exactly?

[Ichneumon]

I just don't understand why after all these years of science promoting TOE, so many people still reject it.

Because it's easier to propagandize against a complex topic than it is to properly explain it. For example, in the Lewinsky/Clinton matter it was easier for liberals to chant the soundbite, "it's just about sex", and easier for peoplel to grasp that concept, than it was to explain and have people grasp the intricacies of federal perjury laws, the importance of precedent, the original intent of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", the value of holding high officials to oaths and standards, etc.

Evolutionary biology takes years to get a good foundation in. But anti-evolution propaganda is easy -- it doesn't have to restrict itself to the truth or the evidence, just "sounding good" in a short anti-evolution slogan is sufficient to raise a level of doubt. And anti-evolutionists have been working hard for many years to reach as many ears as possible with as many fallacies, misrepresentations, and outright lies about evolution as possible.

Given the onslaught of propaganda it has had to endure, evolutionary biology is actually holding up surprisingly well, from a popular-opinion standpoint.

But needless to say, truth is not determined by polls or popularity.

The public is more accepting of homosexuality than evolution.

Nonsense:

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results

Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?

	Acceptable	Not acceptable	No opinion
2003 Jul 25-27	46	49	5

Versus:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

	Humans developed, with God guiding	Humans developed, but God had no part in process	God created humans in present form	OTHER (vol.)/ No opinion
	%	%	%	%
2001 Feb 19-21	37	12	45	6

49% of the public believe humans evolved over millions of years, while 46% consider homosexuality acceptable.

[gobucks]

Most of the PH crowd will do much to bait intemperance. But I understand it.

They don't really believe anything but counterfeits exist.

[Ichneumon]

Revisit your notes regarding faith, psychological certainty, and discernment between the soul and spirit from Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

None of this salvages your false statements about the teaching of biology.

If one only studies from post enlightenment epistimology, don't be surprised if one never fully comprehends the meaning of righteous justified faith, but confuses knowledge with rational justification in unrighteous arrogance.

I'm not confused.

[Ichneumon]

Most of the PH crowd will do much to bait intemperance. But I understand it.

No, you really don't.

They don't really believe anything but counterfeits exist.

See, as I said -- you really don't understand.