Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[melon]

I think the origin of names of the planets and moons should be addressed in philosophy class. The same goes for the intelligent design theory, which I subscribe to somewhat.

But in science class, in public schools.......not so much.

You know, I hate to say it, but I read your post here as if you were being sarcastic. My apologies.

(I think it was the )

I guess this place has put me on edge a bit lately, which means it's probably a good time for me to back off a bit and let others chime in for a while. I've enjoyed mostly lurking here over the past year, rather than writing.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Or when studying literature/mythology. Or ancient history. It fits very well in several subjects...just not science.

Physics would be the subject where the topic of the solar system would be likely to come up, I guess, and I don't see why there the origin of the names shouldn't be discussed.
It's not promoting believing in Roman mythology.

 

[INDY500]

Physics would be the subject where the topic of the solar system would be likely to come up, I guess, and I don't see why there the origin of the names shouldn't be discussed.
It's not promoting believing in Roman mythology.

The ancients themselves gave the 5 visible planets their names. We have referred to them as such ever since, certainly well after the worship of their namesakes has ceased. So obviously teaching this history is not going to usher in a new wave of polytheistic paganism.
However, pantheistic paganism is alive & well and in fact has recently been seen canoodling in the corner with the SCIENCE of climate change.
Will those who now stand guard to keep "nature's God" out of our classrooms be as vigilant in keeping "God is Nature" out?

 

[yolland]

Re: 'Judeo-Christian' ... that term is used to describe certain specific ideas, values, and metaphors perceived as shared by both religions; it might be applied to a nation or a people insofar as said ideas are part of their cultural milieu, but it's never correct usage to apply it to individuals--that makes it sound as if there's some delimitedly 'Judeo-Christian' sect or ancestral group they might belong to, when it fact it refers only to areas of ideological overlap. Sometimes the term is used narrowly and with reference to concepts drawn from a shared scriptural basis (like the Genesis creation narrative); other times it's used in a far looser sense where 'Western' ideas that aren't really inherent in either religion, but have historically been articulated using monotheistic language, are deemed 'Judeo-Christian'--for example, the idea of divinely endowed (inalienable) rights for all men.

This use of the term originated in the US during WWII, as an attempt to build solidarity among the non-Communist member nations of the Allies by invoking a cultural legacy they all shared in common--in such a way that not only the USSR, but also Germany, would be pointedly excluded from the definition. 'European,' 'democratic,' and so on would thus have been problematic; 'Judeo-Christian' worked because it identified a shared cultural legacy in Christianity (in contrast to the USSR's state atheism) while at the same time symbolically including those countries' Jewish citizens in that legacy (in contrast to Germany). So, it was a politicized term from the beginning and unfortunately is still often used as such.



Ummm, I feel like I should also say something constructive on the actual thread topic, but I'm afraid I've got nothing to add to what's already been said at the moment.

 

[A_Wanderer]

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

[the iron horse]

The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.


The film does not even try to prove intelligent design or the existence of God.

 

[melon]

The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.

The thing is, science is not about these things. There is a specific method to science, which we call the scientific method. And that doesn't mean that you're not allowed to question science; but it does mean that you have to ask yourself a question in the process:

Is my question in the realm of science or in the realm of philosophy?

If it's in the realm of philosophy, then that's where you should go to ask it. If it's in the realm of science, then you have to follow the scientific method, or otherwise, you're not doing a service for either science or for the general public. 2+2 is not 5, no matter how hard you want it to be so.

Leave the political posturing to the politicians.

"There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens." - Ecclesiastes 3:1

 

[BVS]

The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.


The film does not even try to prove intelligent design or the existence of God.

No, it really isn't. It's about trying to force certain subjects into fields where they don't belong.

You don't teach subjects you can't mathmatically prove in math.

You don't teach math in philosophy classes.

You don't teach history in computer science classes.

If you can't use any scientific methods to explain the theory, then it doesn't belong in a science class, it belongs somewhere else.

Period.

Teach about God in a church not a science room. Just because God isn't taught in a science room does not mean God doesn't exists or took part in creating the things we learn in a science class.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.


The film does not even try to prove intelligent design or the existence of God.

ID in public school is unconstitutional, the spirit of free inquiry is alive and well with science and creationists are as always acting as sore losers.

 

[the iron horse]

Have we forgotten that words do have definitions
and sentences do have meaning?

Or do we accept that any response we make is a truth?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Is that supposed to make sense? ID is religion, it has no place in public school, and besides that it is bad science and doesn't hold a candle against the power of evolutionary biology.

 

[the iron horse]

"Is that supposed to make sense?"


What do you mean?

A sentence is a group of words that does not expresses a complete thought?

 

[indra]

besides that it is bad science

I think this is the crux of the matter. Teaching ID as actual science is akin to teaching incorrect grammar and sentence structure in English and expecting students to be at all prepared to use the language correctly.

 

[the iron horse]

I think this is the crux of the matter. Teaching ID as actual science is akin to teaching incorrect grammar and sentence structure in English and expecting students to be at all prepared to use the language correctly.

What crux of the matter?

That is not what the film is about.

 

[melon]

Have we forgotten that words do have definitions
and sentences do have meaning?

Or do we accept that any response we make is a truth?

You've made a great argument here against intelligent design being introduced into science.

Science has a clear definition and a clear meaning. To accept any old response like "intelligent design" is to make science ridiculous and meaningless.

 

[BVS]

Have we forgotten that words do have definitions
and sentences do have meaning?

Or do we accept that any response we make is a truth?

 

[popsadie]

Actually, I do think that students should be free to intermingle disciplines. Although it shouldn't take up the majority of instruction time, I don't see anything wrong with engaging discussion over the philosophical and cultural impact of science. Likewise, I believe that literature classes should read texts that encourage students to think creatively about science and math. Although specialization has it's place, I believe that more inter-disciplinary dialogue and instruction would be beneficial in our schools.

 

[diamond]

I feel bad for Iron Horse in this thread.
He is the ID peoples' own Samson and he's getting ransacked by the masses in FYM.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n08tlBsljUc&feature=related

<>

 

[BVS]

No one's gotten ransacked here...

 

[Irvine511]

i feel like i've read this thread already.

it's always the same -- those who know what science is calmly defend their positions, those who don't know what science is act like spoiled children trying to push for one more inch because it just isn't fair that other people aren't taught their beliefs and that their own belief system isn't reinforced by the state. they get very sentimental, too, and they seem to think of themselves in an inspirational made-for-TV movie about a little boy who dares to believe and stands up in front of the class and with his words he leads a mass movement for Jesus, but he's also scientifically brilliant, and in the science fair at the end of the year, after working really hard on his project, he creates something that so challenges everything we've ever thought about science that suddenly the mean old science teacher sees the light, and the light streams in across the school gym, because that's god's light, you know, and then the music swells and as the camera pulls out we get a good glimpse of the American flag, one nation under Jesus and we all know, deep down, that I AIN'T A-COME FROM NO MONKEY!!!

 

[popsadie]

No, it is just that the tone of many of the evolutionists' posts here has been smug and not exactly conducive to dialogue. Although I do understand why 'intelligent design' has been questioned by the scientific community, I do not see the problem with discussing theistic evolution in comparison to natural selection, because, as I earlier maintained, scientific theories like natural selection DO have philosophical implications.

 

[Irvine511]

No, it is just that the tone of many of the evolutionists' posts here has been smug and not exactly conducive to dialogue. Although I do understand why 'intelligent design' has been questioned by the scientific community, I do not see the problem with discussing theistic evolution in comparison to natural selection, because, as I earlier maintained, scientific theories like natural selection DO have philosophical implications.

and you can do that in a philosophy class. by all means, go right ahead. i think it would be a great discussion.

but ID is not science. and it's hard not to get a little bit smug when people run around in circles trying to defend what is a fundamentally indefensible position. and ID, in particular, is an explicitly evangelical Christian movement dressed up in the veneer of science and intended to pretend to be science so that it might evangelize from the classroom itself. please take a look at things like The Discovery Institute and what their anti-science, anti-intellectual message really is.

 

[BVS]

No, it is just that the tone of many of the evolutionists' posts here has been smug and not exactly conducive to dialogue.

This is part of the problem right here. You automatically assume that anyone who wants 'intelligent design' out of the science class is purely an evolutionist. You've made the gray part of this discussion black and white.

Although I do understand why 'intelligent design' has been questioned by the scientific community, I do not see the problem with discussing theistic evolution in comparison to natural selection, because, as I earlier maintained, scientific theories like natural selection DO have philosophical implications.

No one, not one person has said this can't be done in a philosophy class. I haven't seen this smugness that you speak of, but maybe part of it is the frustration that many feel due to the constant ignoring of such points.

It would actually be kind of funny if it weren't so frustrating, but everytime we have this discussion, many clear headed conversations are had making the points that these theories belong in a science class and ID belongs in a philosophy class. Spelled out very clear, but it never fails the ID folks cover their ears and scream "you don't want it in the schools". It's just like Irvine said, so many in here "act like spoiled children trying to push for one more inch because it just isn't fair that other people aren't taught their beliefs and that their own belief system isn't reinforced by the state."

 

[popsadie]

No, actually I don't assume this. I am not a proponent of intelligent design myself. What I do believe is that several of the evolutionists who have posted on here have posted in an inflammatory manner.
As far as my opinion goes on the issue, I believe that evolution proponents that say this Only belongs in a philosophy class have disregarded the philosophical impact that this Scientific idea carries. For this reason, I believe that a certain amount of care should be given to teachings that could affect religious and philosophical ideas.

 

[Diemen]

But science class is not the place to discuss the philosophical implications of evolution, either. Any philosophical implications should be taken to a philosophy class.

I'm all in favor of creating a "Philosophy of Evolution" class. In fact I think it would be a fascinating class to take. But that is not what these IDers are asking for. They're asking to place their philosophy, one that has no scientific evidence to back it up, one that indeed cannot even be tested using the scientific method, into a science classroom and have it taught as if it were science. And that is where I and many other "evolutionists" draw the line.

 

[popsadie]

Very few high schools have philosophy classes. Small schools can not afford to offer this curriculum, but Are required to offer Biology. This is why I believe that it should be addressed in science classes...at least one discussion anyway...

 

[Diemen]

Very few high school have philosophy classes. Small schools can not afford to offer this curriculum, but Are required to offer Biology. This is why I believe that it should be addressed in science classes...at least on discussion anyway...

Simply because schools don't have philosophy classes doesn't mean we need to compromise the teaching of actual science by bringing philosophy into science classes. It has no place there. And once we introduce competing ideas into the science classrooms, especially ideas that we can't actually prove or disprove, we elevate those ideas to the same level of science, raise skepticism against science and turn it into yet another agenda when nothing could be further from the truth. And we fall further and further behind in education.

And besides, if we start teaching, in a science class, something that does not even adhere to the principles of science, where do you draw the line? Should we then include every single creation theory from every single religion, since they also have philosophical implications on the origins of life? Or do we just include ID and Christian creationism?

 

[nathan1977]

Here's the challenge: science does not deal in the abstract; science deals in reality. While religion/philosophy deals in largely existential questions of meaning and purpose, science deals in observable, quantifiable facts.

The problem is that when it comes to the origins of life, those origins are fundamentally unknowable because they are unobservable.

So when it comes to the origins of life, while science can study fossil records and the like, fundamentally they are studying the effects of evolution. Science can't explain the causation. It can make projections about the causes of life's origins, but it can't make fundamental decisions, because the causes are unobservable.

It's at the causation level where science and philosophy start to mix, in part because one cannot theorize about the origins of life without trying to understand the cause. I'm not saying that "God" even needs to be a part of the answer, but the fundamental question "what caused the cause" is as much a philosophical as a scientific one.

There is no problem with, in a science class, postulating a theory of everything, or postulating a cause behind the cause. But once we get into such postulations, various theories seem to come into play -- all philosophical in nature.

ETA:

The challenge is for scientists to admit they don't have all the answers, in the same way that the challenge for religionists is to admit the same (the Bible is not a science textbook). In a fundamentally defensive world such as ours, where both science and religion are being challenged, there is naturally a tendency to close ranks and see the other side as the problem, which tends to create polarization. Naturally the nature of scientific inquiry means that answers are going to be sought, but I don't believe everything has a scientific explanation.....and I think there is a way for people of science and people of faith (who are much closer than they perhaps would care to admit, since a recent survey showed that 43% of scientists are also religious) to create an open-minded dialogue, rather than a polarizing one. I don't think science and God are opposites, and I don't think it's helpful to create an either/or scenario. (The Bible doesn't discuss the minute details of HOW God created the universe -- I read a fascinating book a while ago called "The Science of God" by Gerard Schroeder, which shows how a rapidly expanding universe, complete with the volume and force required for such spontaneous expansion, can be reconciled with a reading of the Hebrew scriptures of the Genesis account.)

I'm not sure where EXPELLED lands in all this. Knowing some of the filmmakers behind the film, I know that they are not rabid creationists. At the same time, in the rush to make a movie that will make money for its investors, and to hit a niche audience, even if the film is fundamentally about the need for a bigger tent as far as scientific inquiry goes, the flash-points of ID/creationism may ultimately sink the desire for a greater dialogue, as it has seemed to polarized the discussion.

 

[popsadie]

Nathan, thank you for expressing this point of view so eloquently.

 

[yolland]

So when it comes to the origins of life, while science can study fossil records and the like, fundamentally they are studying the effects of evolution.

I understand what you're saying, but "studying the effects" is exactly what ID proponents claim they're doing--that they're simply studying the effects of intelligent causation, not the cause itself, and therefore ID is science, not philosophy or religion. It's ID, not 'science,' that has a problem with saying, "No, we don't have empirical evidence for everything"--they want to jump in at that point and say, "Aha! See, we can't fully account from the evidence for this phenomenon [flagella, blood clotting etc.], therefore a greater intelligence than ours must be at work here." They're treating the absence of evidence as evidence in itself, which confuses faith with knowledge. And arguing that it constitutes "censorship" not to teach such claims in science class is of course asserting that ID is scientifically valid.