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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:




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.

Science does and will evolve,
discard or leave inferior, defective theories behind

Religion sometimes evolves a bit to survive
or like the druids, and many other pass religions, they get left behind


Where is the intelligence in the eyeball and eyesight?
Human eyesight will deteriorate long before our life span is over.

There are insects the have better vision systems,
that are still working perfectly at the end of their life span.

A 100-year-old camera has better optics and will take a perfect picture than the image fifty-year-old eyes can produce.

Is the camera designer more intelligent than his designer?
 
nbcrusader said:


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.

Why are you under the impression that most scientists argue that first life forms just "formed"?

That is patently false.

For example, something you may want to look into is the RNA world theory and how it pertains to slow evolution into the first life forms, rather than a short, definitive event.

There, you canot argue that mathematics are so improbable that they are unlikely.
 
Lemonfix said:
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?

The Catholic "theory of evolution" is no different from the scientific theory of evolution. In fact, it officially frowns upon creationism, interestingly enough. You just are supposed to believe that God is the one responsible for evolution.

Now someone is probably thinking:

"How is this any different from intelligent design?"

Indeed, even once I was confused, but what separates "intelligent design" from Catholicism's belief in "theistic evolution" is that ID will modify conventional science to try and "disprove" natural selection. As such, ID engages in pseudoscience. "Theistic evolution," however, requires no modifications in conventional science to believe that God was still part of it. It would argue that "natural selection" still happened for theological reasons that we cannot comprehend. As such, Catholic high schools, when it comes to science education, I don't think "God" was even mentioned once. It was all about teaching conventional, secular scientific theory.

Melon
 
melon said:
As such, Catholic high schools, when it comes to science education, I don't think "God" was even mentioned once. It was all about teaching conventional, secular scientific theory.

That was certainly true in my high school.
 
melon said:


The Catholic "theory of evolution" is no different from the scientific theory of evolution. In fact, it officially frowns upon creationism, interestingly enough. You just are supposed to believe that God is the one responsible for evolution.

Now someone is probably thinking:

"How is this any different from intelligent design?"

Indeed, even once I was confused, but what separates "intelligent design" from Catholicism's belief in "theistic evolution" is that ID will modify conventional science to try and "disprove" natural selection. As such, ID engages in pseudoscience. "Theistic evolution," however, requires no modifications in conventional science to believe that God was still part of it. It would argue that "natural selection" still happened for theological reasons that we cannot comprehend. As such, Catholic high schools, when it comes to science education, I don't think "God" was even mentioned once. It was all about teaching conventional, secular scientific theory.

Melon

i guess they got enough of an ass-kicking

with the Galileo Affair
 
melon said:


The Catholic "theory of evolution" is no different from the scientific theory of evolution. In fact, it officially frowns upon creationism, interestingly enough. You just are supposed to believe that God is the one responsible for evolution.

Now someone is probably thinking:

"How is this any different from intelligent design?"

Indeed, even once I was confused, but what separates "intelligent design" from Catholicism's belief in "theistic evolution" is that ID will modify conventional science to try and "disprove" natural selection. As such, ID engages in pseudoscience. "Theistic evolution," however, requires no modifications in conventional science to believe that God was still part of it. It would argue that "natural selection" still happened for theological reasons that we cannot comprehend. As such, Catholic high schools, when it comes to science education, I don't think "God" was even mentioned once. It was all about teaching conventional, secular scientific theory.

Melon

Thanks Melon. I have to admit I was a bit confused about the difference between theistic evolution and ID and you summed it up nicely. I fear, however, that many people will assume that ID and theistic evolution are the same thereby putting up less of a fight about letting ID into public school curriculum.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
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.

Actually, I didn't see you really asking a question. Since you have already eliminated the consideration of God from the definition of science, how could accept a "valid scientific theory" for Intelligent Design.
 
nbcrusader said:


Actually, I didn't see you really asking a question. Since you have already eliminated the consideration of God from the definition of science, how could accept a "valid scientific theory" for Intelligent Design.

Well, now you've seen me asking it. :wink: :)

I'm a little confused by your response - does it mean that you accept that intelligent design isn't a scientific theory (in which case surely you must agree that it should not be taught in science class) or that you believe that a theory based on religious faith can be scientific?
 
melon said:


As such, Catholic high schools, when it comes to science education, I don't think "God" was even mentioned once. It was all about teaching conventional, secular scientific theory.

Melon

Yep. That's what I remember from my Catholic HS science classes. Of course, they were also taught by an atheist. :)
 
nbcrusader said:
Perfect! Let's have both :)

When the Christian Coalition allows gay marriage, I'll probably be in a more charitable mood.

Melon
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Fine, I have no problem with that. But keep them in their respective places. After all, I wouldn't teach science in a church.

Angela

Exactly. Discuss intelligent design in religious theory, and evolution in science. I'm taking biology this year, and I swear to God I will make the biggest fuss if they try to include intelligent design as a valid scientific theory.
 
If we have to learn about ID in biology class, then those kids whose parents are pushing this should also be learning about genetic theories of homosexuality.
 
Inspiration for Doubters of Darwin
Bush appears to give moral support to the 'intelligent design' camp by again backing public schools' teaching of an alternative to evolution.

By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Advocates of an alternative to the theory of evolution took heart Tuesday from President Bush's remarks that "both sides ought to be properly taught" in public schools.

In an interview with several Texas newspapers Monday, Bush was asked about the growing debate over the idea of "intelligent design," which holds that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "And I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

ADVERTISEMENT

The remarks were in keeping with what Bush has said in the past. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush or his aides said several times that local school boards should decide questions about teaching evolution and its alternatives; at times, they said that both evolution and creationism should be taught.

"I think it's an interesting part of knowledge [to have] a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view," Bush said during one 1999 appearance, according to a news account at the time. "I personally believe God created the Earth," he said.

Proponents of teaching evolution — the theory that holds that existing animals and plants developed gradually from previous forms through natural selection — have said that an increasing number of school boards seek to diminish its use in science classes or promote alternatives.

Bush's comments Monday appeared to give moral support to groups that back teaching intelligent design.

"What the president's remarks do is heighten public interest in the issue," said John H. Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas advocacy organization.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group, said initiatives to counter the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory had been launched this year in 28 states and communities. On Tuesday, a group of Kansas educators said that proposed science standards written by the State Board of Education promoted intelligent design and had "no scientific credibility." The educators had been appointed by the state board to review the standards.

Branch read little into Bush's Monday remarks. "The question was presented to him as a fairness issue," he said. "For a politician, that's like opposing fairness or apple pie."

Still, Branch said, he was sure the president's comments "would no doubt prove inspirational to creationists."

Creationists believe that God created the Earth and its inhabitants as described in the Bible's Book of Genesis, and that evolution played no role. For decades, some creationists have pressed school boards to teach creationism in schools.

Intelligent design, which started to gain notice about 10 years ago, holds that evolution alone does not adequately explain some complex biological mechanisms, suggesting that a plan by an intelligent force is behind changes in species.

"Creationism and intelligent design are often confused," said Jay W. Richards, vice president for research at Discovery Institute, a Seattle research and advocacy group for intelligent design. "Both have in common the idea that the universe exists for a purpose." Where intelligent design parts company with creationism, he said, is that it is neutral on Darwin's claim of common ancestry among species while challenging his theory that species change over time because of natural selection.

But critics say intelligent design is a form of creationism, stripped of references to the Bible to make the contention more palatable to skeptics.

"They are striving to maintain a big tent," said Branch, the evolution advocate. He said intelligent design supporters duck questions — such as the age of the Earth — that could alienate traditional creationists.

The debate over intelligent design grows louder. In a March letter to members, the National Academy of Sciences warned of "a growing threat to the teaching of science through the inclusion of non-scientifically based 'alternatives' in sciences courses throughout the country."

Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, seemed to differ with the president at a February appearance before the National Assn. of Science Writers. Marburger said that "intelligent design is not a scientific theory."

Asked about Bush's comments, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the president had said nothing new Monday. Bush believes "that local school districts should make the decisions about their curriculum," McClellan said. "But it's long been his belief that students ought to be exposed to different ideas."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press was used in compiling this report.
 
nbcrusader said:


Perfect! Let's have both :)

Okay, but once we've decided that theories with no scientific basis can be taught in the science classroom, where do we draw the line?

I don't know whether I should really ask this, and you should feel free not to answer if you wish, but do you personally believe in 'intelligent design'? I only ask because it seems quite easy to argue that a religious theory should be taught in schools when it's one with which you agree, but I can't help feeling it might be a different matter if people proposed teaching a theory based on a religion other than your own.
 
Call me simplistic....

and I remember arguing this in my science class in college (Nazarene College).....

But why can't eveolution be a part of it? Who is to say evolution is not the way God worked?
 
^I agree. It would only make sense that a higher power would design creatures that, rather than being static, would adjust and grow.

I don't think most people are saying they can't coexist, but that religious theories shouldn't be treated with validity in a science class more than anything else that I could come up with off the top of my head. A disclaimer saying that not everyone accepts evolution and some religious groups believe in ID is all that's needed, and even that's pushing it.

I can see this popping up in biology next year in my county...we've had problems with this in the past, suing, etc. Once I make sure my teacher won't fail me for it, and if it becomes an issue, I do plan on being a little smartass in class and, erm, speaking my mind on the issue.
 
Dreadsox said:
But why can't eveolution be a part of it? Who is to say evolution is not the way God worked?

It's a power trip, that's why. Scientists came up with the theory, rather than the clergy concocting it in their basement and passing it along to the praise and worship of their congregation.

Call it the right-wing equivalent of "teenage rebellion."

Melon
 
To all those who ask why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes, I ask why don't you worship Vishnu in your Christian church?
 
melon said:


It's a power trip, that's why. Scientists came up with the theory, rather than the clergy concocting it in their basement and passing it along to the praise and worship of their congregation.

Call it the right-wing equivalent of "teenage rebellion."

Melon

Don't just chalk it up to a "power trip", melon. Consider the spiritual ramifications (at least upon Christianity) of Adam and Eve not actually existing.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either (1) mistaken or (2) a liar. Either way, it would prove Christ to be imperfect, and therefore not the Son of God, not God in the flesh, and not capable of being the redeemer of mankind.

As for Paul, he spoke about Adam being the man by which sin came into the world and, and about Christ being the "Second Adam", by which man could be redeemed from the power of sin.

The inter-relatedness of man is a very important theme in the Bible. It is through the lineage of one man, Adam, that the sin nature is passed down to every person ever born. It is that sin nature which keeps people away from God, and it is only through eradication of the sin nature, through being "born again" in Christ that man can be saved and enter into an eternal relationship with God. That's all right there in Romans, Hebrews and other New Testament books.
 
Last edited:
80sU2isBest said:


If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either (1) mistaken or (2) a liar. Either way, it would prove Christ to be imperfect, and therefore not the Son of God, not God in the flesh, and not capable of being the redeemer of mankind.


Don't buy it for a second. First of all no one said Adam couldn't exist if evolution exists. Secondly Christ was very capable of speaking to us in analogies, and that's exactly what I see most of Genesis, even most of the OT as being. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with God using analogy to communicate with us, it just makes sense. We cannot comprehend even the simplist complexities of God.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Don't just chalk it up to a "power trip", melon. Consider the spiritual ramifications (at least upon Christianity) of Adam and Eve not actually existing.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either

(1) mistaken or

(2) a liar. Either way,

......



or (3) misquoted
 
indra said:
To all those who ask why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes, I ask why don't you worship Vishnu in your Christian church?

Exactly. It's another theory.....why isn't it taught as well?



In science class, you teach evolution and evolution only. Science classes are for the study of what man has PROVEN through scientific means. It's not a place to study different unproven religious theories.
 
Back
Top Bottom