MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars...

[A_Wanderer]

as someone else mentioned i imagine this is just the first step in a larger plan to get genesis into school classrooms.

I don't think so; it seems that it was more of a statement of his own personal beliefs reaffirming his position. I do not see this as the broad assault on science teaching ~ rather I see it as a result of it.

 

[Se7en]

I don't think so; it seems that it was more of a statement of his own personal beliefs reaffirming his position. I do not see this as the broad assault on science teaching ~ rather I see it as a result of it.

funny that you and i would disagree.

anyway, i really don't care what his personal beliefs are - he has a right to them like anyone else. it was this quote thought that makes me wonder:

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.

i could be wrong. hopefully so.

 

[echo0001]

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no place in the science classroom.

They belong in a comparative regligion class (but that will never happen, 'cause many Christians would strenously object to their children being exposed to other religions) or in a philosophy class (which most American children, let us be honest here, would not be equipped to handle, seeing as how they've never been taught how to think without getting a headache that can only be cured by video games, pathetic comedy movies starring Adam Sandler and massive infusions of Coca-cola).

Science is science. Religion is something else. I wish somebody would explain this to Georgie Jr.

 

[unosdostres14]

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no place in the science classroom.

They belong in a comparative regligion class (but that will never happen, 'cause many Christians would strenously object to their children being exposed to other religions) or in a philosophy class (which most American children, let us be honest here, would not be equipped to handle, seeing as how they've never been taught how to think without getting a headache that can only be cured by video games, pathetic comedy movies starring Adam Sandler and massive infusions of Coca-cola).

Science is science. Religion is something else. I wish somebody would explain this to Georgie Jr.

Being the brother of someone who double majored in political science and philosophy. I COMPLETELY agree with you.

 

[echo0001]

Being the brother of someone who double majored in political science and philosophy. I COMPLETELY agree with you.

Thank you!

 

[MadelynIris]

I know. Somebody needs to tell George W that Politics and Religion don't mix. Or at least don't go together well.

This is precisely why the democrats keep losing the election.

W realized how many people vote based on spiritual beliefs, and that gave him the edge.

 

[Mongpoovian]

You are correct in saying ID is much different than creationism. It's apples and oranges. Creationism is wham bam everything happened in six days. ID takes evolution into account but acknowledges the presence of a diety too.

As a Catholic and a scientist, I tend to favor ID. Life is way too complex for it all to be random. If it were all evolution, it would be like winning the lottery day after day for millions of years.

ID is much different than Young Earth Creationism (YEC). However, it's more like granny smith apples and red delicious apples. YEC evolved into the day-age creationism, which turned into "scientific" creationism, which has turned into ID. None of them are scientifically supported, none of them are an "alternative" to evolution, and they all invoke the supernatural interference of a deity. Which, in the case of ID, is quite obviously the christian god.

 

[Lemonfix]

As for W's views on evolution/ID, I doubt he gives the idea half a thought. Just wants to keep the social cons happy with a shout out.

But anyway, I have to admit that Intelligent Design rubs me the wrong way mostly because of the extremist element that seems to back it and the fear I have of them wanting to go even further into Creationism.

On the other hand, take away the slippery slope/religious extremist element of ID. What kind of argument can be made against it? It is not exhaulting a certain god or religion and is being offered up as a simple theory, that alone is not enough for it to be breaking church/state separation--I'd love it if someone could make a detailed argument why ID should not be implemented (and I'm not being glib, I really don't think ID is a good idea, I just can't really put my finger on why ).

Also, I know that many of you believe in both God and evolution. How does your belief differ from that of the the theory of Intelligent Design (also not a dig at anyone, just attempting to get a better feel on what ID really is and how it differs from how other theists view evolution.)

 

[A_Wanderer]

On the other hand, take away the slippery slope/religious extremist element of ID. What kind of argument can be made against it? It is not exhaulting a certain god or religion and is being offered up as a simple theory, that alone is not enough for it to be breaking church/state separation--I'd love it if someone could make a detailed argument why ID should not be implemented (and I'm not being glib, I really don't think ID is a good idea, I just can't really put my finger on why ).

The reason is because it is unscientific and it does not meet the requirements to be considered a scientific theory.

The principle point of it is that it infers a designer having a hand in life on earth; this designer cannot be proven or dispoven therefore it is not falsifiable. A key requirement for scientific theories is that they are falsifiable ~ for example Newtons law of Universal Gravitation was a scientific theory that fitted the observations of his day but was ultimately disproven when it was established that light did not travel instantaneously.

ID also lacks the evidence of regular evolutionary biology. While ID proponents will point to a few select examples where they can make their case (which can also be explained within the framework of evolutionary biology) they ignore all the other examples where the evidence does not fit around their hypothesis. In this it is a much weaker proposition than evolution ~ and I may also add that evolution is not a single set in stone theory, it is a dynamic area of research that is constantly being refined and explored unlike ID which starts with it's final conclusion (a designer) and works its way back.

 

[s_tielemans]

They've tried to hold a conference about it here (Holland), and get government funding for that. That idea was blasted in parliament. It's a theory that our prime minister and education minister (both of a Christian party) consider 'interesting and worthy of further investigation". They were laughed at by the rest of the country though.
Basically it focuses on the scientific premise of finding an element that cannot be proved to be evoluted. That would then prove the evolution theory a theory that cannot be right. However, they have found such a thing (some kind of bacteria I think), stop looking and (and that's where they go wrong in my view) use that as a way of saying "well, then it must be created by some super intelligent creature or diety". Evolutionist however, say they just haven't found the link yet.

It's interesting to discuss (nothing wrong with questioning any theory in my opinion), but not something to be taught as a scientifical fact to youngsters I think.

 

[Axver]

The principle point of it is that it infers a designer having a hand in life on earth; this designer cannot be proven or dispoven therefore it is not falsifiable.

I want to know why someone can't seek to prove or disprove the existence of a deity via science.

 

[melon]

You are correct in saying ID is much different than creationism. It's apples and oranges. Creationism is wham bam everything happened in six days. ID takes evolution into account but acknowledges the presence of a diety too.

As a Catholic and a scientist, I tend to favor ID. Life is way too complex for it all to be random. If it were all evolution, it would be like winning the lottery day after day for millions of years.

Catholicism doesn't believe in "intelligent design." It believes in "evolutionary creationism" (a.k.a., "theistic evolution"), which is believing that God is behind the scientific process of evolution. There's a big difference between that and "intelligent design," namely that Catholicism doesn't expect you to engage in pseudoscience to believe in both God and evolution.

Science class is not in the business of "democratization" of truth, no more than math class should be expected to take on Kabbalistic numerology.

Melon

 

[hiphop]

no more than math class should be expected to take on Kabbalistic numerology.

Melon

oh but THAT would have been interesting.

in compare to vectors.

 

[nbcrusader]

Why are people so scared of intelligent design?

Teach both theories. If evolution is so solidly established, no one will buy the other theory. Certainly hasn't happened here.

 

[melon]

Why are people so scared of intelligent design?

Teach both theories. If evolution is so solidly established, no one will buy the other theory. Certainly hasn't happened here.

"Intelligent design" is NOT a scientific theory. Just because a bunch of religious folk came together and decided to invent it does NOT make it a scientific theory. It is bunk.

Again, this would be the equivalent of teaching Kabbalist numerology in math class. Math and science are NOT meant to be subject to popular compromise.

If people want to believe in "intelligent design," they can go to church.

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Why are people so scared of intelligent design?

Teach both theories. If evolution is so solidly established, no one will buy the other theory. Certainly hasn't happened here.

Because it is a theory of science based on religious faith. There is quite simply no objective scientific evidence for 'intelligent design' and for this reason the theory has no place in the science classroom.

 

[randhail]

"Intelligent design" is NOT a scientific theory. Just because a bunch of religious folk came together and decided to invent it does NOT make it a scientific theory. It is bunk.
Melon

How is it bunk? Can you disprove ID completely? Can you give me irrefutable evidence as to how we arrived here?

 

[deep]

The president has a logic system that works for him. Here's an example: You know Rafael Palmeiro?

STEWART: Yes, uh, the baseball player who was suspended for taking steroids, after he testified in Congress that he had never taken steroids.

CORDDRY: Right. Now you or I might look at Palmeiro's positive drug test and say, "Wow, Rafael Palmeiro is a steroid user." The president looks at that and says to reporters yesterday, "Palmeiro's the kind of person that's going to stand up and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him." Or, to paraphrase (putting hands over ears): "LALALALALA."

 

[melon]

How is it bunk? Can you disprove ID completely? Can you give me irrefutable evidence as to how we arrived here?

The burden of proof is not on science. The burden of proof is on "intelligent design" to prove itself to be a science. Period. That's is the only way anything ever makes it into the field of science; but so far, "intelligent design" isn't doing too well. ID bases its "theology" on fallacies and mistruths with clear personal biases against Darwinism that science itself has found holes large enough to drive a semi through it.

Evolution passed its test decades ago to quantify as a bona fide scientific theory, which is not taken lightly. The best "intelligent design" will ever be is an unprovable hypothesis, and that plain does not pass the test to be worthy to be taught in science class.

Again, if people want to believe in "intelligent design," they can go to church.

Melon

 

[randhail]

Evolution passed its test decades ago to quantify as a bona fide scientific theory, which is not taken lightly. The best "intelligent design" will ever be is an unprovable hypothesis, and that plain does not pass the test to be worthy to be taught in science class.

Again, if people want to believe in "intelligent design," they can go to church.

Melon

Evolution is not the end all and be all of scientific dogma. It does not explain the advent of new anatomical features but rather only how current ones become modified. While ID is not a science, it is worthy of mention as a possibilty of how life arrived.

 

[melon]

Evolution is not the end all and be all of scientific dogma. It does not explain the advent of new anatomical features but rather only how current ones become modified.

No one ever said that current theories of evolution answer everything about the creation of life anymore than saying that medicine knows the answers to everything about the human body. But we wouldn't imagine adopting Christian Scientist theology and passing it off as "medicine," now would we?

While ID is not a science, it is worthy of mention as a possibilty of how life arrived.

Ah, but you see, that's for the realm of philosophy and theology, not science.

Melon

 

[Iskra]

That is what happens when you elect a redneck.
Idiots.

 

[unosdostres14]

ID should not be taught in a classroom because it's not science. It's a philosophy of how life was created. It belongs in religion class, not science class.

 

[randhail]

Fair points. You are right that it is more of a philosophical issue than anything. Waves the white flag for this.

 

[nbcrusader]

Because it is a theory of science based on religious faith. There is quite simply no objective scientific evidence for 'intelligent design' and for this reason the theory has no place in the science classroom.

I've heard the repeated arguments before. But, the argument exists in a self-contained universe. You cannot consider an intelligent design theory because you deem it "non-scientific". Not a very scientific approach.

And what you don't realize is that you take just as big a leap of faith to follow evolution as an explaination for the beginning of life.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I've heard the repeated arguments before. But, the argument exists in a self-contained universe. You cannot consider an intelligent design theory because you deem it "non-scientific". Not a very scientific approach.

And what you don't realize is that you take just as big a leap of faith to follow evolution as an explaination for the beginning of life.

Perhaps you would like to explain on what grounds you consider intelligent design a valid scientific theory.

And I do not believe that looking at the vast amount of objective scientific evidence for evolution and concluding that it is the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is in any way as much of a leap of faith as deciding that God created the world in the absence of any objective evidence for such a belief.

 

[nbcrusader]

And I do not believe that looking at the vast amount of objective scientific evidence for evolution and concluding that it is the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is in any way as much of a leap of faith as deciding that God created the world in the absence of any objective evidence for such a belief.

There is no objective evidence that the first life forms just "formed". In fact, the mathematics behind this actually happening would lead the average reasonable scientist to say it is impossible.

However, when you won't entertain an alternative idea, I guess you are stuck with evolution.

 

[melon]

And what you don't realize is that you take just as big a leap of faith to follow evolution as an explaination for the beginning of life.

I've heard that argument before, but it's not true. "Evolution" is not all based on the "whoops" factor; I'd say that's a very minimal part of what makes up evolution. There is lots of scientifically observable evidence in favor of evolution, which is why it is the preferred theory for the origin of life. "Evidence," by definition, is the antithesis of "faith."

If people are interested in "faith," then they can go to church and believe whatever they want. There's nothing wrong or unethical about that. If people are interested in the "evidence," however, then they can study science.

Melon

 

[Lemonfix]

That is what happens when you elect a redneck.
Idiots.

Actually, if you look at this guy's lineage it's Yaley Greenwich Episcopalian turned Methodist but I digress...

Melon, I'd be more interested in finding out more about how the Catholic theory of Evolution (as created by a higher power) differs from ID. Is there some good reading material/websites out there on the topic?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

There is no objective evidence that the first life forms just "formed". In fact, the mathematics behind this actually happening would lead the average reasonable scientist to say it is impossible.

However, when you won't entertain an alternative idea, I guess you are stuck with evolution.

Having considered the alternative idea of 'intelligent design' I concluded that evolution is distinctly more plausible. It isn't about being "stuck with evolution" it's about considering the alternatives and concluding that evolution is more plausible than the alternatives.

I would really appreciate you answering the question I posed in my previous post if you have chance: "Perhaps you would like to explain on what grounds you consider intelligent design a valid scientific theory." After all, it really is key to the question of whether it's appropriate to teach 'intelligent design' in a science class.