Judge bans teaching Intelligent Design - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-21-2005, 05:45 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



simply because there might be questions about evolution, and that the theory itself might well evolve, this still has nothing to do with theistic claims of a grand designer. such a claim by a PhD would remain rooted in and of science, not of philosophy or theology, and would thereby have a place in a science class. if such results by a PhD mathematician were then appropriated by ID proponants as proof of ID, based upon their premise that any questions or alterations of Evolution become de facto evidence of ID have misunderstood, entirely, how science works

the judge says this perfectly: "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." what ID proponants have done is create what's been called a "contrived dualism"—the bogus assumption that "all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism."

at the end of the day, the PhD mathematician is not testing ID; he is testing evolution.
And in there lies part of the problem. We are operating on a false dichotomy that questioning of evolution (or providing evidence that it is not possible) must be favoring ID (which is not necessarily the same as creationism).

The Dover Area School Board only tried to open a door to the questioning of evolution - and this was considered too much?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 05:53 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


And in there lies part of the problem. We are operating on a false dichotomy that questioning of evolution (or providing evidence that it is not possible) must be favoring ID (which is not necessarily the same as creationism).

The Dover Area School Board only tried to open a door to the questioning of evolution - and this was considered too much?


it is not scientists who have set up this dichotomy, or agree with this dichotomy, or even give this dichotomy the time of day; it is vocal ID proponants and the media who give them airtime.

there is plenty of questioning of evolution, only it is done of, by, and through science and does not. the ruling has only strengthened science by reaffirming scientific principles and making ever more clear the lines between legitimate scientific inquiry and reaffirming the American Association for the Advancement of Science's definition of what science is: first, scientific explanations must be natural, not supernatural. second, they must be testable.

ID fails both of these, and isn't science. you cannot test for ID.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:00 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Go back to the beginning. The Dover Area School Board wasn't teaching ID, or even proposing curriculum for ID.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:25 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Go back to the beginning. The Dover Area School Board wasn't teaching ID, or even proposing curriculum for ID.


it was requiring there to be four paragraphs in the front of a text book -- a "disclaimer" -- that there were other alternatives to evolution. specifically:

[q]Eleven parents in Dover, a growing suburb about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, sued their school board a year ago after it voted to have teachers read students a brief statement introducing intelligent design in ninth-grade biology class.

The statement said that there were "gaps in the theory" of evolution and that intelligent design was another explanation they should examine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/ed...icle_popular_1

[/q]

in the context of science, there aren't. and to present these "alternatives" as worthy of mention in a scientific textbook is to play into precisely this "contrived dualism."

also, "Intelligent Design," make no mistake, is a protestant Christian idea. it is creationism by another name.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:46 PM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


If a PhD mathmetician theorizes that evolution is mathematically impossible, does this still belong in a philosophy/religion class? Can science handle the questioning?
One PhD mathmetician "theorizing" that evolution is mathematically impossible harldy constitutes a reversal of the evolution THEORY.
What does consitute a reversal of beliefs?
Ah, this is a philosophy of science question. Thus it belongs in a philosophy of science class.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 07:04 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If a PhD mathmetician theorizes that evolution is mathematically impossible, does this still belong in a philosophy/religion class? Can science handle the questioning?
I have to love these completely preposterous "what if" scenarios.

What if a Ph.D mathematician proves atheism? Can religion handle the questioning?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:46 PM   #37
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 04:54 AM
very interesting article on the origins of ID - nothing to do with religion at all:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...71/1006/NEWS01


Controversy about intelligent design has generated headlines across the country this year, and Tuesday's federal court ruling isn't expected to calm the debate. But where it originated and who developed it still are not well-understood

Intelligent design is derided by some as junk science and little more than a repackaging of biblical creationism. Others -- including some Indiana lawmakers who have said they are considering adding it to the state's classrooms -- view it as a thought-provoking challenge to evolution.
To hear Stephen Meyer talk, the early days of the intelligent design movement were something like the dawn of a renaissance.
Meyer, a geophysicist who leads a Seattle-based think tank dedicated to intelligent design research, traces the ID movement to the 1970s, when, he said, scientists in a variety of disciplines began to question evolutionary theory.
Chiefly, these scientists believed there seemed to be a purpose in nature that evolution's chancy randomness simply couldn't explain, Meyer said.
To them, life appeared to have been designed by some kind of intelligent designer, possibly God or some other force.
However, it took years before this loose collection of skeptics came together to start sketching out a coherent case for their doubts about evolution, Meyer said.
A critical gathering took place in 1993 when Phillip E. Johnson, a professor emeritus of the law school at the University of California-Berkeley, invited the leading voices of this new skepticism for a get-together at a beach house in Northern California.
"We had people there that were embryologists, paleontologists, molecular cell biologists, philosophers of science and biochemists," Meyer said. "There was a kind of a collective 'Aha' at the event. (Until then,) many of these people thought they were alone in their skepticism about evolution."
Besides Johnson, the meeting included several others who have emerged as the luminaries of today's intelligent design movement. Among them:
William Dembski, a mathematician who has used probability theories to support the intelligent design argument. Dembski started the first think tank devoted to intelligent design at Baylor University. Today, he continues his work at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
Dr. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biosciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who crafted ID's "irreducible complexity" argument, which holds that certain organisms could not have developed through evolution's stairstep process because, without all of their existing parts, they could not have survived.
Design theorists such as Behe believe that, in its purest form, ID is rooted in science first and foremost. But the ID community also includes people, such as the Rev. Fredrick W. Boyd Jr., who promote intelligent design based on religious beliefs.
Boyd, the leader of Zion Unity Missionary Baptist Church in Downtown Indianapolis, believes God is the intelligent designer. And he says teaching evolution alone leaves children with a sense that they have no more purpose in life than any other animal.
"I'm not clamoring for the elimination of evolution" in education, Boyd said. "I'm clamoring for both sides of the story."
To evolutionists, intelligent design is just an attempt to sneak creationism into public schools.
They point to 1987 -- and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that said public schools couldn't teach creationism -- as a pivotal year for intelligent design.
"Literally, in the middle of the year after that case was decided, they switched terms from 'creation science' to 'intelligent design,' " said Robert T. Pennock, professor of philosophy of science at Michigan State University.
"The evidence is very clear that this is a new name for the same idea."
Not surprisingly, ID adherents dispute this.
"Pandas"

Long before today's controversy, Greek philosophers such as Aristotle noted that aspects of nature seem to have an uncanny cohesion. But it wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s, a century after Charles Darwin articulated evolutionary theory, that the seeds of the modern ID movement began to take root.
Design theorists say biologists at that point began to better understand the complexity of cells, while physicists began to understand that life would not exist if the speed of light, the pull of gravity and other natural phenomena were altered in the slightest. All of that fostered the belief that some grand design was at work.
Whether ID becomes part of Indiana's school curriculum anytime soon seems unlikely in light of Tuesday's ruling. If it ever does, teachers could end up using a 1989 biology textbook that makes the case for intelligent design, "Of Pandas and People." The use of the book in public schools -- and whether ID can be taught in schools at all -- was at the heart of the case in Dover, Pa., intelligent design's first major court battle.
For pro-evolutionist scholars such as Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse," the "Pandas" book reveals much about ID adherents.
Forrest said early manuscripts of the book were filled with creation references. But after the high court's Edwards ruling, those references, according to evidence presented in the Dover case, were replaced with words and phrases such as "design" and "intelligent design."
"The creationists had to change their identity a little bit" after the Supreme Court decision, Forrest said. "They had to call themselves something different."
Meyer dismisses that notion, saying any editing of the book likely had more to do with the fact that design theorists were still trying to find a name for their movement about the time the book was being written.
Theories

Behe, for one, was still trying to sort out his thoughts about evolution at this point.
Though he's a Roman Catholic, Behe said, his parochial school teachers had taught him evolution. "We were taught that was how God created life, and that sounded OK with me," he said.
But in the late 1980s, after he read "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," by Australian geneticist Michael Denton, he started a journey that put him firmly in the intelligent design camp. The book asserted that there were holes in Darwin's theory of evolution.
"It really shook me," Behe said.
He said he spent time searching science libraries for papers that explained the evolution of key components of biochemistry -- such as the systems that enable nourishment to move through cells or blood to clot. But he found none.
For a couple of years, he did little with his altered worldview.
"I didn't know what to do," he said. "Mostly I wandered the halls and muttered rude things about evolution to anybody I came across."
By 1996, Behe's thinking had crystallized sufficiently, and he would write one of the few books on intelligent design to reach a mass audience -- "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," which sold 200,000 copies. He also would emerge as a key witness for the defense in this year's trial at Dover.
In a nutshell, Behe's "irreducibly complex" theory holds that removing just one of the proteins found in cells would leave those cells unable to function. As a result, he says, the step-by-step development of cells necessary to explain evolution makes no sense.
Behe's theory was challenged in the Dover courtroom by Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist from Brown University who said the organisms Behe claims to be "irreducibly complex" simply aren't so complex, and that science has found their evolutionary ancestors.
Also, biologists note that a protein critical today might have been unnecessary in the early days of a cell's formation.
Dembski, who relied on Behe's book as the basis for his work, is noted for having developed ID's "explanatory filter." The filter, according to Dembski, can isolate related patterns in the randomness of nature. Such patterns support the idea of an intelligent designer, ID adherents say.
Like Behe, Dembski has seen his work dismissed by physicists, geneticists and others scientists. Primarily, critics say, Dembski's filter fails to consider combinations of natural forces that help explain life on the planet.
Johnson, meanwhile, is viewed as the inspirational leader of the intelligent design movement.
Johnson published "Darwin On Trial," a biting critique of evolution, and, along with Meyer, was one of the early figures involved in establishing what has become the hub of the intelligent design movement -- the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, created in 1996.
Johnson, according to ID critics, produced a document that serves as the smoking gun in their quest to reveal intelligent design as nothing more than repackaged creationism.
The 1999 document, intended as a fundraising tool for the Discovery Institute, describes the think tank's two governing goals: the "defeat of scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies; (and) to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
The idea is that intelligent design would act as a "wedge" to dismantle the "materialistic" idea that people are merely "animals and machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces" but instead are "moral and spiritual beings."
Johnson could not be reached for this story. But Meyer, who directs Discovery's Center for Science and Culture, has a quick defense for what came to be known as the "wedge strategy."
Science, he said, mistakenly closes the door to explanations in nature that point to a designer, things such as the digital-like coding of DNA proteins.
So far, the work produced by the researchers affiliated with the Center for Science and Culture -- there are about 100 -- has failed to gain a foothold in the larger scientific community.
The more immediate question now is whether intelligent design supporters, given their loss in Pennsylvania, can expect to gain a foothold in Indiana's classrooms.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:54 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:54 AM
You know, if you read Genesis in its original Hebrew, it supports God as Creator AND the natural evolution of human beings......
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:16 PM   #39
The Fly
 
ArrogantU2Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ft. Worth Texas
Posts: 158
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
You know, if you read Genesis in its original Hebrew, it supports God as Creator AND the natural evolution of human beings......
See this is my stance as a Christian first and Roman Catholic Second....we do not know "in his image" so God and Evolution are not opposites to me.....never understood why this was so hard for people to understand and argue about....ok Big Bang God could have caused it??? And I agree with the above quoter if you really read Genesis in the original Hebrew text it doesn't refute evolution...Susan

Why can't people just find what in their heart they believe and be content?? Why is it so important to argue about.....I am Roman Catholic however do I agree with everything in the Catechism...heck no.....Christianity is one thing...your religion is where you choose to worship?
__________________
ArrogantU2Fan is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 11:46 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ArrogantU2Fan


See this is my stance as a Christian first and Roman Catholic Second....we do not know "in his image" so God and Evolution are not opposites to me.....never understood why this was so hard for people to understand and argue about....ok Big Bang God could have caused it??? And I agree with the above quoter if you really read Genesis in the original Hebrew text it doesn't refute evolution...Susan


It's a valid point, but that's not quite what I meant. In the Genesis creation story there are two words used in the context of humans being created or coming into being. One word for "create" ALWAYS implies God as the creator (thus "in God's image"...). Another word is more like "formed" or "evolved".

The problem with our Western interpretations of the Christian creation story is that we're looking at it from the wrong point of view. The Hebrew creation story carries the context of defining relationships - God's relationship w/ people, people's relationships w/ each other - but we've misinterpreted the original texts and formed them to meet our Western fascination with events, not relationships - God formed this, then God formed that, then this happened, then this happened, and so on. ALL the Christian creation story really defines is God's authority over human beings and the ablity of humanity to work together and have relationships together. The creation story isn't meant to be proof of this theory or that theory or even BE a theory itself.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 12-22-2005, 12:34 AM   #41
The Fly
 
ArrogantU2Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ft. Worth Texas
Posts: 158
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Yes I do see your point....that is excellent!!!:
__________________
ArrogantU2Fan is offline  
Old 12-22-2005, 02:43 AM   #42
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
You know, if you read Genesis in its original Hebrew, it supports God as Creator AND the natural evolution of human beings......
and this is largely my position; however, this is a philosophical, religious issue not a scientific issue. For religious people to claim that God should be in the science classroom is dangerous. Do we really believe God can be measured with test tubes? The God i believe in is bigger than a science lab.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 12-22-2005, 02:56 AM   #43
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 174
Local Time: 09:54 AM
Does it matter what caused life to form? It formed and we don't know exactly how or why.

Teach science in science class, and God's creation in Sunday school or in a private school.

And I'm an evil Republican.
__________________
theblazer is offline  
Old 12-22-2005, 08:34 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Here's the lowdown on who is pushing ID:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=1&cset=true

Quote:
The prime engine propelling the dissemination of ID is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank whose $4 million budget is heavily funded by conservative Christian donors. Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, which used to be the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, laid out its goals in a 1999 fundraising document called "The Wedge Strategy."

Determined to drive a "wedge" into the tree trunk of "scientific materialism," it said, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture, pointed out that the wedge proposal was a plan, not a scholarly document.

"That document was about more than intelligent design. It was about the larger cultural context and the anti-religious agenda of some people in the name of science," he said.

Indeed, the document went beyond the scientific debate, extending the argument into the world of politics. It equated Darwin with Karl Marx and others whom it described as viewing humans not as "spiritual beings but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment."

This materialistic conception "eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art," the document said.

The Center for Science & Culture's five-year plan, much of which already has been achieved, called for funding research fellows at major universities, publishing numerous articles and books on ID, generating significant media coverage and getting 10 states to include ID in science curricula.
Same old religious fanatics up to their usual tricks.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-22-2005, 08:38 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 07:54 PM
As long as an elite can be bred separate to the ID version of education, I see no reason why the nuts and bolts of technocratic civilisation cannot be continued. They can man the magical machines and the rest of us can sink into blissful oblivion!
__________________

__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com