You know what I am hoping? That you are a member! If you are not, what a shame. Also, I checked into Stuart's book a bit. Not much help unless you listening only for what you want to hear. Self-organizing mumbo jumbo complexity otherwise.
Posted on 01/11/2005 1:14:41 PM PST by beavus
Last Wednesday, 32 University of Pennsylvania professors and the chairman of the physics department wrote an open letter to the Dover, Pa., Area School Board, condemning its incorporation of a religiously-loaded explanation for biodiversity into science classrooms.
Dover recently instituted a policy requiring teachers to preface biology lectures with an alternative to the evolutionary theory of biological diversity. Known as intelligent design, the alternative idea incorporates many tenets of creationism and posits that living organisms are so complex that a divine being must have created them.
Paul Sniegowski, an assistant professor of biology at Penn, argued that the Dover District's attempts to include intelligent design theory are "as absurd as suggesting that life was parked here by aliens."
Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center -- a non-profit Christian organization -- responded by sending an open letter to the Penn professors last Friday, accusing them of trying to "spoon feed students" and "establish dogma."
Thompson argued that to omit intellectual design theory obstructs the critical thinking processes of students and "keeps them in the dark."
Penn professors, on the other hand, argued in their letter to the Dover District that students must be taught "real science."
Michael Weisberg, an assistant professor of philosophy, claimed that students should be taught only "well-confirmed theories that are accepted by the scientific community" in the science classroom.
High-school science teachers in the Dover district seem to agree with this sentiment, as all but one signed a petition on Thursday to "opt out" from reading the intelligent design theory statement to their students.
Though Thompson stated that intelligent design is a viable scientific theory, many Penn professors --including Weisberg and Sniegowski -- argue that the theory and other religious thoughts are best kept out of the science classroom. They suggest alternative forums, such as religion, philosophy or other courses of study for such discourse.
For Thompson, science has inherent religious implications that extend beyond the "test tube."
"Theory is tentative ... scientific belief is always based on faith," he said.
Members of the Dover County administration could not be reached for comment.
Creationism controversy
Much of the banter about the teaching of intelligent design -- a religiously based theory for biodiversity -- in the Dover, Pa. high-school science classroom has come in the form of open letters. Below are excerpts from the written correspondence between three of the parties involved.
Dover Area School District Assistant Superintendent to local parents: "Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence."
Thirty-three Penn professors to the Dover Area School Board: "Science education should be based on ideas that are well supported by evidence. Intelligent design does not meet this criterion: It is a form of creationism propped up by a biased and selective view of evidence."
Non-profit, Christian-affiliated Thomas More Law Center President Richard Thompson to Penn professors: "If the level of inquiry supporting your letter is an example of the type of inquiry you make before arriving at scientific conclusions, I suggest that at the very least, your students should get their tuition money back, and more appropriately, the University should fire you as a scientist."
I have ZERO problem with the discussion of intelligent design...in world cultures class.
Yeah! If the kids are receiving the atheistic catechism in science class, they might, horror!, stop hooking up at the rates that are currently observed w/ satisfaction by these high priests of 'what's accepted'. The rule of cool marches on ....
Hear, hear.
This post will surely bring the fire-breathing religious Darwinists out of the woodwork. Unlike scientific analysts who will acknowledge that they will change their minds if sufficient proof is presented, published, and scrutinized, religious Darwinists outright reject any facts that counter their unscientific beliefs OR they get all Orwellian and pretend that new exculpatory facts somehow fit in to their beliefs as if the new facts had always been known to them.
DISCLAIMER: I will respond to rational discussions of this thread.
That is not the only avenue for the concept of "intelligent design". A more realistic one is that some intelligent force may be designing or influencing evolution, just as we humans are designing new types of plants and animals. Just because someone on another planet, thousands of years from can now, can prove that the grain they're eating is descended from a grain which was genetically engineered by some intelligent being(s), does not make said intelligent being(s) "divine", much less responsible for all creation in the known universe.
I have a question: why are the priests of evolution at this school allowed to discuss this till they are blue, but no one holds their feet to the fire about what STARTED evolution?
Even notice how an evo will turn tail and run when you hit the abiogensis button?
As one put it to me, we just discuss what's already working (b/c what works, well it just works!); how evo got started is like asking how the big bang got started - it's pointless to discuss it as far a scientist is concerned (but it is not really pointless, b/c to discuss it is to endanger the sexual behavior rule book that has been so jealously guarded since the 60's.)
So, they know how evo works AFTER it got started. So, by the lab-coat-cleaners-of-america, they swear little kids will know too, AND they'll ensure the discussion of what came before kick-off, well that is not science and can never be science....
These guys .... they are so .... trustworthy. And they have no agenda either except to protect 'our kids'. Riiiiiiight.
Amen to that brother!
The quote you posted is somewhat troubling, since critical thinking and universal skepticism should also be taught in science class (the limits of skepticism is a topic for epistemology). However, specific discussions about nonconcensus views probably are best suited for advanced high school or college level science.
However, Creationism, as it is currently professed, is utter nonsense and has no place at any level of science curriculum.
A divine intelligent being designed the first grain seed though.
I've never encountered any "religious Darwinists", but they sound like very unreasonable people--almost as thoughtless as those who deny that evolutionary science provides reasonable explanations for the known facts of life on earth.
I, too, agree that anti-Christian Darwinism should not be thaught in the schools.
In another time, another era, they would be at the stake.
That's because evolution and origin of life are different. Evolution is about origin of species. If you want to talk about origin of life, read up in "At home in the universe" by Stuart Kauffmann. He presents a convincing argument for first life based on supercritical chemical reaction network.
Uh, well might that be because the theory of evolution, as so far developed, doesn't pertain to the origin of life?
The sheep liver fluke is a parasite that is passed between multiple intermediate host organisms with the specific "intent" of ending up right where it belongs -- inside the bile ducts of grazing animals. Their eggs are ingested by snails from sheep crap . . . the eggs hatch and generate an adverse reaction in snails that causes them to salivate and spit them out . . . the snail saliva is ingested by ants . . . and the ants are ingested by sheep and other grazing animals directly from grass. The next generation of parasite is then spawned inside the disgestive tract of the grazing animal, and the process starts all over again.
The probability that this species developed as the result of random mutations in an evolutionary process is so tiny on its face that I would call it damn near impossible.
It is not that it is unimaginable that some intelligent extraterrestrial lifeform deposited life on earth, it is that (1) there is no evidence to support such a specific claim; (2) the actual evidence in the fossil and genetic record screams "evolution"; (3) it only diverts from the question of how life develops (i.e. how did the aliens come about?).
You know what I like about Creationism and the Creationists? That they are not afraid of the word science. I mean, the truth is I would never try to 'scientifically' and rationally argue in support of Creationism myself.
It's like trying to use secular fire to spread the soothing touch of holy water. Just doesn't make sense to me.
But, man oh man, these folks are scrappy. I love how American it is! You can be dead wrong and have a right to it. What I find utterly disturbing, however, is that just b/c a Creationist doesn't have his scientific act fully together, the traditional 'scientist' states to him: shut up until you get smart enough to be allowed to speak on this subject."
That, from my pov, is Orwellian. I defend the creationists right to sow doubt and confusion. If the 'smart' guys in the white coats have trouble competing w/ 'idiots and zealots', maybe that says a lot more about the evidence supporting what they're trying to sell, and says a lot less about the snake oil the creationists see as holy water. But, no, defending the right of someone to enjoy their holy water .... that is NOT COOL in today's world. What total bs - Vladimir would be impressed.
"Michael Weisberg, an assistant professor of philosophy, claimed that students should be taught only "well-confirmed theories that are accepted by the scientific community" in the science classroom."
-- WOW. A professor of PHILOSOPHY. Now the heavies to this debate have weighed in.
Well, if you say so, it must be true. The OOL of ToE are totally unconnected. Got it.
There once was a fish, that jumped into the air, and didn't see any flying fish. He said, "I have never encountered any flying fish {and it must be true they don't exist for everyone knows fish don't fly!)".
A flying fish swimming by didn't stop to bother to correct him. Such are the nature of fish.
It's a matter of abundance of evidence. The evidence in support of evolution of life on earth is enormous. The evidence to explain the development of life from nonlife is scarce. Science is appropriately applied to both, but it is predominantly scientific speculation that describes the latter.
The same is true of the big bang. We can project further back in time with each new supercollider, but until we have those observations, we can primarly only speculate.
From a purely scientific point of vue, how did the designer evolve? Did the designer have a designer? The logic gets very circular and fits with a philosophical or theological discussion, not a scientific one. If intelligent design gets established in schools, it will disrupt the entire scientific learning in AMerica. The result will be we will need to import more and more people with technical knowledge because the excuse "a creator made it that way" won't get problems solved or help support advances in technology.
Ping.
. But that isn't the area the fight is over now is it? It is the claims of the macroevolutionists that have the christian girdles tied in a knot.
What about the scientists' right to sow truth and understanding?
Even that is saying too much. Probably the only common denominator for all evolutionary theories is natural selection--changes in the gene pool as a result of environmental pressures.
However, the fact of natural selection is the most reasonable explanation of speciation as well.
Well tell me this then, what is the mechanism that stops small changes from adding up to large changes. How do you explain away something like a ring species where the evidence for evolution is living and plain; and well studied.
It would help if the article mentioned the chairman's name. He's Prof. Tom Lubensky; he's a world-class physicist, and a thoroughgoing gentleman in every respect.
I don't believe that Darwinist reject any facts that come in front of them, but when faced between two theories, they simply chose the one which has evolution in it. I would change my mind if there was overwhelming evidence in the creationist favor, but until that happens, I will continue to believe in the ToE.
It is not circular at all. There was a creator. That is all we can say. That is where the metaphysics end and the physics start.
In no way does this harm the scientific method.
Someone has proposed models of String theory since Kaluza - Klein in the 1920s. We proposed models and verify with phyical evidence.
But there is too much order in coincidences in universe. Untimately, a skeptic would say that thre is no way for us exist- about like someone throwing sand in the air a HD tv falling out.
You know what I am hoping? That you are a member! If you are not, what a shame. Also, I checked into Stuart's book a bit. Not much help unless you listening only for what you want to hear. Self-organizing mumbo jumbo complexity otherwise.
But they know math so much better than us wee folk!! We're not allowed to talk about probabilities!! I mean what if the R2 value is high, but the significance value is low??
So you've read it? Still haven't figured that out.
No, it's a matter of an abundance of evidence examined through a lens of interpretation that has a prerequisit already filled: it supports the moral license framework the vast majority of scientists have a vested interest in keeping.
I don't argue that the macro evolutionists don't make a decent case in SOME respects. I argue how that NO MATTER WHAT, if a scientists also claims faith in Christ, all his work is instantly deemed not credible by the priest of atheistic orthodoxy.
It is the fact that these folks even bother to worry about the 'nonsense spewed' by these creationists that makes their own work so suspect. Given what Walcott (who so thoughtfully hid the Burgess Shales ... by accident of course, for over 50 years) and countless others have done in the pursuit of scientific glory, it is no wonder suspicions are high.
But not in human terms. The thing we all seem to forget about the "Missing Link" is that it's missing.
"If intelligent design gets established in schools, it will disrupt the entire scientific learning in AMerica"
Oh one can only hope and pray for that.
Please note that ID is evolving. It is now "intellectual design," a phrase that conjures disturbing images of celestial associate creators jockeying for tenure.
Oh wait, I get it. You're not a moron, you're a sophist just like most of the other prolific devos posting at FR. Got news for ya - the lurkers aren't that dumb.
I defend their right to keep doing what they are doing, though it makes my skin crawl to actually type it. America is bigger than this red herring conflict between id-ers and the 'defenders' of the real truth.
Thomas More Law Center President Richard Thompson: because when they need am unbiased prestenation of the truth, everyone turns to a lawyer.
ping
I saw a show on parasites on PBS or the Discovery Channel a while back, and I was totally fascinated by the complex life cycles of some of these species.
"well-confirmed theories that are accepted by the scientific community"
Aren't we all glad that Voltaire, the Wright Bros., Einstein, Edison, Curie, Galileo, Copernicus, Salk, Hawking, Leewonheuk, DARWIN and etc. all missed taking their scientific indoctrination classes?
Imagine we could have barbers bleeding people with leeches to rid them of their bad humours.
Doctors would not wash their hands prior to surgery.
Polio would still be a threat.
There'd be no aircraft.
No electricity.
No nuclear science or nuclear medicine.
There'd be no anti-biotics.
And worse of all....
There'd be no Free Republic!!!
The greatest advances in science were made by people who were not constrained by the narrow-minded thinking of "accepted" science.
The scientific advances to come will be made by people who don't care a hairy-rats ass what "accepted" science says is impossible or can't be done.
Whatever body of science we have and accept today will be mostly subject to history books or ridicule in another hundred years.
The people who follow the premise of intelligent design may well discover and make new advances based on their understanding and perception of facts that religious Darwinists will be unable to fathom or accept.
Of course, they may be utterly wrong, too.
But that remains to be seen and the point of science is to explore without preconceived notions of what you'll find.
Considering that the religious Darwinists have closed their minds to any ideas outside of their own they are rejecting the very science their belief system is built upon.
Let Intelligent Design stand to scientific scrutiny - especially the scrutiny of probing young minds absent the prejudices of adults - and who knows what will be found?
I don't care if Intelligent Design is determined to be wrong at some point in the future. My argument is that we should not teach a sceintific process that excludes ideas and facts without scientific processes and academic scrutiny first being applied to the issue at hand.
Even Einstein once said something to the effect that he was only right until someone else proved him wrong. He accepted the scientific process that I speak of.
All they are required to do is read a statement that there is a theory of intelligent design.
They aren't even teaching it, but everyone is still getting their pants bunched up.
I like what I have read about the ring species; very plausible. The stuff is interesting. But, what does that have to do w/ shoving ToE down the throat of someone else who who doesn't agree with the conclusions about how ring species came about? What if the same ID entity that is responsible for the OOL also interferes in real geologic time? This is why the evolutionists get so worked up ... they create a convenient rule
"WE WILL NOT DISCUSS OOL AS IT PERTAINS TO TOE"
, and they expect everyone else to toe the line. That expectation is quite religious in its character; I have encountered it many times in church, from blind pharisees who behave just like these religionist darwinists do. It is all too famaliar. What makes it pathetic, is how sure both are that they are 'right'.
.Anyway, That is why creationists have gotten a foot hold; you guys made room.
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.