Posted on 06/08/2007 10:45:45 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?
It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.
At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.
Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.
In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."
(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)
Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.
But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.
"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."
Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.
"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.
On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.
School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.
"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.
Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."
Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"
"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.
Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.
"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."
Students will begin using the new textbooks this fall.
And that's the problem. I have given you more reasoned arguments and critical thought than you can comprehend.
You claim that all you have gotten out of our conversation is "God did it" when *nowhere* did I *ever* make that claim.
You do realize that this is not contained within the theory of evolution, right? Technically, God could have sparked the first life and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.
When I try to explain to you the staggering odds involved
I'm still waiting for someone to explain the supposed staggering odds. All I've seen are wild guesses.
Who said you had to play it? You chose to of your own free will.
I'm going to remind you of two things which you may have forgotten. First, this is America. I can't force you to do anything. Second, I'm younger than you. When was the last time you played a game that you didn't like with a person not of your family who happened to be significantly younger? That you like to use my sentence structures and replace words indicates that you're enjoying this game. You can stop anytime you like.
If I recall, I was nice enough to reply to a user who claimed that evolution is a religion. I defined religion from the AHD and stated that under that definition, evolution was indeed a religion. Not surprisingly, you took advantage of my statement to thank me for "admitting" that. And, since then, despite a few of my requests, never once have you stated that under the definition I provided, intelligent design and creationism are also religions. You don't need to; your posts implicitly demonstrate that intelligent design is a religion under that definition.
I've gotten what I wanted from you, anyway. I wanted you to admit that intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology is not natural, and you did admit that. Thanks.
Oh, as a last point - assertions that the chromosome is designed do not count as "reasoned arguments." You don't need to say "God did it"; "designed" and "created biology" are tantamount.
For future reference, try to avoid using the term "created." It makes your intelligent design mask peel off ever so slightly.
Which means absolutely nothing, since Crick effectively said you're wrong. He admits your view was a mistake, overly pessimistic in light of later scientific research.
Luckily, scientists can say they don't know. They rely on the advancement of science to hopefully one day find out. They don't just give up and say "God must have done it."
Yet he has the audacity to call me “dishonest” for simply quoting Crick out of his own book!
The first time, no. Everybody makes mistakes. The second time after correction, yes. At that time you knew he retracted his statements and therefore the authority you appealed to no longer existed. An appeal to a knowingly false authority is dishonest.
You used him to support your position; therefore, he is your authority. And your authority contradicts your position, unless you dishonestly leave out his later admission that he was wrong.
You can also check out chapter 11, The Enigma of Life’s Origin, in Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Sorry, but I don’t have time to tutor you now.
Ah, more Discovery Institute propaganda (Denton was a senior fellow, but he's since tried to cleans his ties with the DI, and therefore his work). No need to tutor, the book was resoundingly trashed except by creationists. One review said that Denton "is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case."
Sorry, but you didn't get that from me. You merely reserve unto yourself the authority to define what I said in terms that let you claim I said something I didn't. Are you mature enough to understand that's what you're doing?
Last I responded, I explained that mankind is very close to 'intelligently designing' creatures never seen before and asked you if men were 'supernatural'. Obviously you didn't respond and now claim that I 'admitted' that intelligent design is not natural. Now either you claim that men are not intelligent or admit that men are not natural. Creating and designing are clearly 'natural' attributes of men under your own definition. Do you also get to switch definitions around to fit your needs?
"Oh, as a last point - assertions that the chromosome is designed do not count as "reasoned arguments."
Oh, and assertions that chromosomes occurred 'naturally' do count as 'reasoned arguments'? Why would that be?
They are designed alright. The only question is *what* designed them. Mutation and 'natural selection' or an intelligent designer? Are you mature enough to make that admission?
"You don't need to say "God did it"; "designed" and "created biology" are tantamount."
Now see, you're doing it again. Even though I never said anything about a supernatural designer, you reserve the right to define what I do say in terms that let you put it in a little box that says "God did it" so that you can ignore it.
Even though I never said anything of the sort and am talking so far over your head you can't even begin to comprehend it, you are reduced to this game simply because you must preserve your paradigm and this is the only thing you can think of that will allow you to preserve it.
If you will go back and look at the actual ideas presented, I could believe in extraterrestrials coming to earth and creating life and there would be no difference as far as the conversation goes. It's only you projecting the single argument you have (i.e., "God did it") that allows you to ignore what I am actually saying and preserve your belief-paradigm by saying the things you do. It's certainly nothing I have said, but I don't have to say it if you get to define what I do say such that you can claim equivalence with your pre-formed beliefs.
"For future reference, try to avoid using the term "created." It makes your intelligent design mask peel off ever so slightly."
Sorry, the term 'created' is perfectly consistent with intelligent design. Men *create* things and unless you want to admit that men are supernatural creatures, then you are stuck with 'natural' creatures *creating*. It's a consequence of your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism. You can't rationally argue against it.
You're nothing but word games and psycho-projection. Unfortunately, age will not improve your arguments. Even the older naturalists argue the same way. The reason is that there are no rational arguments for a belief in naturalism, only metaphysical ones. Failing to admit that means that word games and psycho-projection are the only resources left.
I didn't ask you that. I asked you for your scientists answer to how time began. I would think that would be a simple request but evidently not since even you haven't the simple answer to it. I would like to hear you explain the beginning of time to your children. I can imagine it would begin and end with "uh, uh, uh....". If you are really interested in how the Bible came into being you may want to read Lee Strobel who is an investigative reporter who was an atheist before he started investigating. http://www.leestrobel.com/Bible.htm. I know, it may not be what you want to hear but at least you will see where your assumptions are misplace.
Food for thought: Many genes can code for multiple protein products through a process called alternative splicing. Some of these alternative splicing products are abbreviated versions of a longer protein coded for by the same gene. Considering this, would you still hold to the statement above?
We should all strive to improve our style of writing. One step towards good writing is removing redundancies such as the one in your sentence above. ;-)
Would you have a problem with voters who decided that they wanted their children to be taught about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I would also be very uncomfortable with a judge who decided what is and what is not science without considering testimony, evidence, precedent, and so forth. That is undoubtedly judicial activism. But, Judge Jones did not take it upon himself to decide what is and what is not science. He listened to the testimony of DEFENSE expert witnesses. Please note that I did mention that the expert witnesses who claimed intelligent design was at best a fringe science were from the DEFENSE.
In other words, Judge Jones ruled because of the testimony of the defense experts on your side of the argument.
If you want to disown them, fine with me.
What's so special about the human ear? As far as mammalian ears go it's nothing special.
Now the evolutionary transition from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear is interesting, and books have been written about that.
So, you were confused when you said that evolution invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design? You separated and made a distinction between the two, therefore to you, they are not the same. That’s all I wanted, and I did not expect you to write without a denial.
Last I responded, I explained that mankind is very close to 'intelligently designing' creatures never seen before and asked you if men were 'supernatural'…Now either you claim that men are not intelligent or admit that men are not natural. Creating and designing are clearly 'natural' attributes of men under your own definition. Do you also get to switch definitions around to fit your needs?
Can we observe our fellow men creating creatures never seen before? Yes. When our fellow men are creating these novel creatures, are they invoking any divine interventions? No. We see it. It is the byproduct of man’s intelligence. It is not supernatural. As long as the men who are responsible for this new life document their procedures, the process should be replicable. Definitely not supernatural.
I shouldn’t get to switch definitions around to fit my needs. As for you, you seem to enjoy switching definitions. So, I’m not going to ask you to be fair. After all, I don’t want to take candy away from an old man.
Even though I never said anything of the sort and am talking so far over your head you can't even begin to comprehend it…
I cannot comprehend why an argument that boils down to “God did it” is considered reasoned, which is all you have once we take away the Latinate verbiage.
I also cannot comprehend why a guy refuses to acknowledge that under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time, evolution has occurred.
I cannot comprehend why a guy who refuses to distinguish between evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory likes to criticize others for switching definitions.
Last, but certainly not least, I cannot comprehend why an old man voluntarily plays a game and acts like he doesn’t enjoy it but somehow refuses to stop playing.
Indeed, I acknowledge that your words are far over my head1.
If you're feeling frazzled by the density of the atmosphere here, feel free to drop by Darwin Central for a breather.
That was funny. True more often than it should be... Growing up I thought of reporters as unusually smart and educated. I wonder how much things have changed versus how much I was wrong all along.
No, it means that evolution invokes 'naturalism', which is the metaphysical belief that only natural processes are allowed to extrapolate observations into unobserved events. Intelligent design says that an intelligent agent is responsible for those unobserved events. This does not mean that the intelligent agent must be supernatural. It's not that difficult to understand. You just need ID to be supernatural in order to have an argument, so you interpret everything through that need to preserve your paradigm.
"Can we observe our fellow men creating creatures never seen before? Yes. When our fellow men are creating these novel creatures, are they invoking any divine interventions? No. We see it. It is the byproduct of man’s intelligence. It is not supernatural. As long as the men who are responsible for this new life document their procedures, the process should be replicable. Definitely not supernatural."
That's correct, ergo intelligent design (which is intelligent agents designing new life forms) is not required to be supernatural.
"I shouldn’t get to switch definitions around to fit my needs. As for you, you seem to enjoy switching definitions. So, I’m not going to ask you to be fair. After all, I don’t want to take candy away from an old man."
You just agreed that intelligent design doesn't have to be supernatural. That's all I wanted and I do not expect you to respond without a denial.
"I cannot comprehend why an argument that boils down to “God did it” is considered reasoned, which is all you have once we take away the Latinate verbiage."
As you just admitted, if men create through intelligent design it isn't supernatural, therefore your insistence that intelligent design equates with a supernatural agent has been shown to be incorrect.
"I also cannot comprehend why a guy refuses to acknowledge that under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time, evolution has occurred."
I can explain this as many times as necessary. It's not difficult. The observation that is 'a change in allele frequencies over time' is just as consistent with a created biology that is in decline and is therefore no unique evidence in support of evolution. It is a bait-and-switch tactic where an observation is defined with a word and that word is then extrapoloated to an extreme to 'support' unobserved events which the original observation does not support. Basic deception.
"I cannot comprehend why a guy who refuses to distinguish between evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory likes to criticize others for switching definitions."
All I wanted was for you to admit that you are switching definitions, which you have done. That you can't distinguish between 'evolutionary fact' (not uniquely supportive of evolution) and evolutionary theory is not my problem.
"Last, but certainly not least, I cannot comprehend why an old man voluntarily plays a game and acts like he doesn’t enjoy it but somehow refuses to stop playing."
I am not playing a game. You are. I am trying to get you to stop playing the game by pointing it out. That's not the same as playing except, of course, that you claim the right to define it as such so that you can have something to say.
I am giving you reasoned arguments why what you believe is an error and you respond by switching definitions around and playing games. That you choose not to comprehend the truth is painfully obvious. That is not my problem.
Is this an admission that natural processes, such as evolution, are quite capable of producing the complexity and variety of Earthly organisms? Or are you suggesting that these alien benefactors are less complex than Earth life?
I have always agreed that intelligent design does not have to be supernatural. As usual, you have not specifically mentioned which intelligent design you are talking about. Are you referring to the intelligent design that occurs when I assemble a computer from its constituent parts? Or, is it intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology? To reiterate, I have never claimed that my assembling a computer from parts is not indicative of intelligent design. It certainly is. And, according to your definition of evolution invoking naturalism and intelligent design not invoking naturalism, intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology includes supernatural explanations.
It's not difficult. The observation that is 'a change in allele frequencies over time' is just as consistent with a created biology that is in decline and is therefore no unique evidence in support of evolution.
It’s just as consistent? Meaning that under the accepted definition of evolution - not your definition – evolution has occurred? Please answer this question directly. To expedite your answer, I will say that it is possible that change in allele frequencies of a population over time is the byproduct of intelligent design. It surely could be. But, hey, that happens to be the definition for evolution. And, you and I both agree that many populations have had their allele frequencies change over time. So, just to make sure you haven’t forgotten my question, I will repeat it: Under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time – has evolution happened?
I am merely requesting a direct answer. Just like you've never directly said, "God did it," you've also never directly stated that under the accepted definition of evolution, evolution has occurred. To clarify, I am talking about evolution as fact. The theories of evolution all rest on this fact.
Also, your comment in Post 220, "You like the game now that the shoe is on the other foot?", indicates that you are playing the game even though you don't like it. It baffles me that you choose to continue.
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.