Posted on 03/07/2006 5:06:11 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
"I promote the teaching of Intelligent Design because it conveys essential elements of the Creation Story. It will plant the seeds that will ultimately drive the secular agenda -- which is anchored in Darwinism -- out of the public schools."
Tell that to the major ID proponents, who say that ID has absolutely nothing to do with God or religion.
"As to Darwinism being "valid science," I don't accept that. Never have. It's humanist cock & bull."
I am sure you can back that up with... something. :)
Can they replicate? Do they encode inforamtion and pass it on to future generations? Or do they in the absence of light return to their original state?
>>Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.
In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.
Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.
To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.
Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law.
Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.<<
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html
I have many disagreements with ToEs. This one is so trivial and SETTLED.
Read more, not less.
DK
This conflict has nothing to do with science. The unadorned reason for the war against Intelligent Design in favor of Darwin's theory is to deny the existence of God. I wish the issue was so defined.
Science can’t disprove and infinite number of things that are not its responsibility to teach. But again, that sounds like an excellent subject for a philosophy class, no more appropriate for Science than for Math or Spanish or Tennis class.
If our adolescents were compelled to go to Purdue where you encountered evangelical excesses, I’d be more concerned, but wouldn’t conclude that two wrongs make a right.
Teaching non-science in science is like marrying homosexuals. It potentially allows anything in, blurring its methods through lack of standards and corrupting its results.
Best Regards, Bill
All scientific theories are "unproven".
That should be the end of this discussion then.
I'll gladly advocate "intelligent design" theories being taught in school just as soon as it actually *has* a theory. To date, it doesn't (even after 3000+ years of trying), and I doubt it ever will.
And if anyone wants to try to suggest one, keep in mind that in order to be a "theory" in the epistemological sense (and not the vernacular sense as in "notion" or "guess"), an explanation has to meet several specific criteria. And "intelligent design" currently fails those on all counts.
Additionally, I'm just *dying* to hear someone expound what, exactly, an "intelligent design" curriculum would consist of. Take away the misguided evolution-bashing, the fallacious arguments, and the outright misrepresentations, and there just isn't much left to *teach* about "ID", other than, "well, some people think that some deity or unknown aliens might have had some involvement somewhere at some time for some unspecified reasons in the history of life... also... um... okay, let's break for lunch, shall we?"
Ping me if he ever steps up to the plate and attempts to honestly answer those questions.
I think that when science is bent to compare unscientific assertions it’s as debilitating as when it’s politicized by anti-capitalist masquerading as ecologists. I don’t care who believes in evolution or how aggressively it’s criticized, as long as it’s not misrepresented.
Well, at least we have *one* honest anti-evolutionist. The rest keep denying that they're following the propaganda strategy of The Wedge Document.
But haven't you heard? The "intelligent design" folks keep swearing that it's *not* about religion, and in fact the "designer" might well be aliens, and besides, it would be good to teach students that the designer could be dead. I guess you missed the memo.
As to Darwinism being "valid science," I don't accept that. Never have.
Really? Then how do you explain the vast amounts of evidence and research along multiple independent cross-conforming lines which have repeatedly validated "Darwinism"? Mere coincidence, you think? Or is God trying to fake us out?
It's humanist cock & bull.
Then why are the *majority* of American evolutionists *Christians*? I think something is wrong with your cartoonish conspiracy theory. And how do you explain your presumption in light of these folks?
The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and ScienceBut hey, I guess *you* know better than 10,000+ Christian clergy, eh?
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
[As of 29 January 2006, there are 10,230 signatures collected to date]
Click the links that follow to see the alphabetical lists of clergy members who have endorsed this letter
A to E - F to J - K to O - P to S - T to Z
Listing by States
Whenever I've seen you ask him a question, I've seen him answer it.
So far, I am looking at a .005 batting record for Dim and answering something directly and honestly and on its face.
I challenge you to support this claim, or retract it. Can you do so? There's a question for *you*, son. Keep in mind that in order to support your amazing claim, you must have asked him at *least* 200 questions so far, with him answering only one. If on the other hand I can find, say, five questions from you that he has answered, then you must document 995 questions you have actually asked him which he has not answered.
So go right ahead and document that amazing claim, or else be recognized as someone who dishonestly issues false slanders -- like so many other of your anti-evolution comrades.
That should be the end of this discussion then.
Only for the extremely simple-minded, who fail to grasp the meaning of Dimensio's next sentence (which you have snipped out in order to distort the meaning of his response): "This does not mean that all unproven speculation rises to the level of 'theory'".
Clue for the clueless: The fact that nothing can be "proved" in this real world due to epistemological constraints does *not* mean that there are not *other* methods to validate knowledge and to distinguish valid explanations from invalid ones.
This has been understood starting from around the 1600's. Some day I hope the anti-evolutionists will manage to progress beyond a sixteenth-century worldview.
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.