Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pennsylvania School District to Defend Policy on Intelligent Design
The Christian Post ^ | 9/19/05 | Francis Helguero

Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:34 PM PDT by dukeman

The Dover Area School district in Pennsylvania will soon defend its policy to require ninth grade students to hear a short statement about “intelligent design” before biology lessons on evolution.

Dover is believed to have been the first school system in the nation to require students to hear about the controversial concept. The school adopted the policy in October 2004, after which teachers were required to read a statement that says intelligent design is different than Darwin’s theory of evolution and refers students to a text book on intelligent design to get more information.

“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.

The civil trial is set to take place on Sept. 26 and will only be the latest chapter in a long-running legal debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

The controversy over intelligent design in public schools has received national attention with statements by President Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class, along with the recent approval by the Kansas Board of Education to give preliminary approval to science standards that allow criticism of evolution.

Intelligent design theory states that some parts of the natural world are so complex that the most reasonable explanation is that they were made as products of an intelligent cause, rather than random mutation and natural selection.

In contrast to "creationism," which states specifically that God is the creator, intelligent design is more general, simply saying that life did not come about by chance. The "designer" could be anything or anyone, though many place God in the position of the designer.

Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of “irreducible complexity” shows that there is an intelligent creator. He cites the example of a bacterial flagellum, an appendage to a bacterium that allows it to move about.

"Whenever we see such complex, functional mechanical systems, we always infer that they were designed. ... It is a conclusion based on physical evidence," AP reported Behe as saying in testimony before the state legislative panel in June where he was asked to talk about intelligent design.

Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.

In a 1999 assessment of intelligent design, the National Academy of sciences said the theory was not science.

''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS stated.

The controversy over Intelligent Design has been so highly talked about that the debate was also featured last month as a cover story for Time Magazine. In the feature article, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) President Albert Mohler, Jr., tackled the controversy with three other scholars in a forum addressing the question “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?” Behe was also among those whose views were addressed in the article.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: behe; creationism; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last

1 posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:35 PM PDT by dukeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dukeman

There is no "controversy" in the Scientific community. Intelligent design isn't science.


2 posted on 09/19/2005 3:37:19 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman; PatrickHenry
Here we go again placemarker.
3 posted on 09/19/2005 3:49:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35

There is no "controversy" in the Scientific community.
***It looks like a scientific "controversy" to me and to 2/3 of the general public. Welcome to politics 101. The scientific controversy mixes with the political controversy and suddenly you're having discussions with boneheads like me over social policy. The key to social policy isn't whether or not some nitpicking scientific point is observed, it is on whether or not it is good for us as a society. Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy? If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water. But these are the same sort of guys who came up with the fact that the fine structure constant of light has changed, so the speed of light is not a constant.

Intelligent design isn't science.
***The haps side of evo/abio isn't science either, it is a philosophy bordering on a religion. The root word for science is "knowledge" -- we're supposed to be teaching what we know in the early science classes. We can teach what is projected to be known later on.


4 posted on 09/19/2005 3:53:40 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Intelligent design isn't science.

That is a weak, overused, and frankly untrue statement. Defend your stance instead of misrepresenting a theory. I don't hold to ID because it is not compelling enough, but evolutionists say that about every alternative to their theory.

5 posted on 09/19/2005 4:02:40 PM PDT by Tim Long (I'M CREEPING DEATH!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Intelligent design isn't science.

That is a weak, overused, and frankly untrue statement. Defend your stance instead of misrepresenting a theory. I don't hold to ID because it is not compelling enough, but evolutionists say that about every alternative to their theory.

Go back and read what the article states:

''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] stated.

You need to show how CS/ID etc. are testable by science to be doing science. Otherwise, its your religion and belief against someone else's religion and belief, because you are not doing science.
6 posted on 09/19/2005 4:09:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names.
See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

7 posted on 09/19/2005 4:15:39 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

Intelligent Design should be taught at home or in church. It doesn't belong in the Science classroom.


8 posted on 09/19/2005 4:18:05 PM PDT by Redgirl (I actually voted for John Kerry before I voted against him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

If you really want ID in the science classroom, what you will get is religion being subjected to the methods of science.

Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes.

Is this what you want for religious beliefs, testing by the standards of methodological materialism?


9 posted on 09/19/2005 4:21:24 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Those who are interested may want to look at these:

The List-O-Links. Introductory info about the evolution issues.
How to argue against a scientific theory.

10 posted on 09/19/2005 4:26:20 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The thing is, the idea that anti-evolutionary theory is claimed to be unfalsifiable and therefore not science, which is simply not true. Evolution opponents often believe the Bible is infallible, but they do not hold the scientific evidence they present to be unfalsifiable.


11 posted on 09/19/2005 4:26:26 PM PDT by Tim Long (I'M CREEPING DEATH!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

DOLTS! and/or CLODS!


12 posted on 09/19/2005 4:26:49 PM PDT by Vaquero ("From my dead cold hands")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

"The thing is, the idea that anti-evolutionary theory is claimed to be unfalsifiable and therefore not science, which is simply not true."

Some of it is unfalsifiable, the rest has been falsified.
And that sentence is crying out for a verb.


13 posted on 09/19/2005 4:33:33 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
From the Thomas More Law Center web page:

The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith

So much for ID being separate from religion.

I'd be amazed if there isn't a motion to prevent these folks from representing a government school.

There are much more important things such legal organizations can be doing than attempting to destroy the integrity of science.

14 posted on 09/19/2005 4:37:53 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

The "designer" could be anything or anyone

I'd really like to read/hear the cross examination of the 'expert witness' who must defend this statement.

15 posted on 09/19/2005 4:38:40 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
anti-evolutionary theory

That says it all right there. Not a theory designed to advance knowledge, not research, or any of the things scientists do. Just anti-evolutionary. This wouldn't be faith-based, would it?

16 posted on 09/19/2005 4:39:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
It looks like a scientific "controversy" to me and to 2/3 of the general public.

That's because more than 2/3 of the general public doesn't have a complex understanding of biology.

The scientific controversy mixes with the political controversy and suddenly you're having discussions with boneheads like me over social policy.

Which is exactly the problem. Attempting to use social arguments against scientific explanations is a gross misapplication of both.

The key to social policy isn't whether or not some nitpicking scientific point is observed, it is on whether or not it is good for us as a society.

And that's exactly the wrong way to discuss evolution or any other scientific theory. Scientific explanations are not invalidated just because people don't like the implications, though there are a lot of creationists who seem to think that this is the case.

Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy?

Because, as has been explained before, there is no "controversy" within science. The case for ID is based upon a gross misunderstanding or misstating of biology.

If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water.

Meaning that there's no purpose in putting it in a science classroom. Why teach non-science in a science class?

But these are the same sort of guys who came up with the fact that the fine structure constant of light has changed, so the speed of light is not a constant.

This is another attempt at someone who has only heard a smidgen of media-filtered information who now thinks that they have a deep understanding of relativity.

The haps side of evo/abio isn't science either, it is a philosophy bordering on a religion.

No, it isn't. Please try to do some research on the topic before making such dismissive statements.
17 posted on 09/19/2005 4:41:05 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.

LOL. Where 'some' = 99+% of scientists.

18 posted on 09/19/2005 4:41:27 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
The thing is, the idea that anti-evolutionary theory is claimed to be unfalsifiable and therefore not science, which is simply not true. Evolution opponents often believe the Bible is infallible, but they do not hold the scientific evidence they present to be unfalsifiable.

Step 1: Behe claims the flagella is irreducibly complex; i.e. could not possibly have evolved.

Step 2: Evolutionary biologists explain how the flagella could have evolved.

Step 3: ID polemicists complain that the evolutionists haven't provided a detailed, step-by-step accounting for how the flagella actually evolved, calling the evolutionary explanation a "just-so story", a "promissory note for an explanation", etc.

If ID is falsifiable like you claim, then you should be able to tell us precisely what kind of evidence would convince you that ID is, in fact, false.

19 posted on 09/19/2005 4:42:30 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Seeing What's Next by Christensen, et.al.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dukeman; PatrickHenry
“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” said Richard Thompson

patent falsehood... no surprise.

20 posted on 09/19/2005 4:46:02 PM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Well, what do you expect? Look at where the article's from.


21 posted on 09/19/2005 4:50:59 PM PDT by JasonSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: js1138

If you really want ID in the science classroom, what you will get is religion being subjected to the methods of science.
***Nothing wrong with that. I found a ton of useful information when I realized there were a lot of archaeological discoveries that related to 1st century Palestine and what happened there. Besides, I don't care much about religion.


Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes.
***Great. Once we start coming up with scientific tests for the assertions of the haps side of evo/abio, then I noticed that science kinda moved on from that pursuit, coming up with alternative theories of external abiogenesis from comets because the probabilities of abiogenesis origins seemed too small.


Is this what you want for religious beliefs, testing by the standards of methodological materialism?
***I dunno. Those are kinda high falutin' terms you just put together, and I don't know what yer askin'. What's so wrong with testing religious beliefs? Do earthquakes get caused by elephants jumping up & down like the baghavad gita says? The problem I have is with the haps side of evo/abio creeping into every other philosophy on campus in such a manner that even english teachers use it as a backdrop for their soulless philosophies. We should empower students to be able to say, "shut up and teach" english or women's studies or humanities or whatever. Origins belongs in an origins class. If someone happens to hold a different viewpoint than the prevailing scientific priesthood, it shouldn't matter.


22 posted on 09/19/2005 4:51:08 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jess35

Ya beat me to it.


23 posted on 09/19/2005 4:52:35 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

Intelligent Design is trying to prove a negative (that certain features COULD NOT evolve naturally). That, in itself, disqualifies it. How does one test for this? You cannot. It is therefore not a science.


24 posted on 09/19/2005 4:54:54 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

You assume I believe in ID. I already stated I don't think ID is a good theory. Just saying that organisms are too complex to have evolved is not a good argument.


25 posted on 09/19/2005 4:55:32 PM PDT by Tim Long (I'M CREEPING DEATH!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
The problem I have is with the haps side of evo/abio creeping into...

What's "the haps side" mean?

26 posted on 09/19/2005 4:55:35 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Seeing What's Next by Christensen, et.al.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JasonSC

I don't expect dishonesty from Christians.
I try not to, at least...


27 posted on 09/19/2005 4:55:57 PM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

Go look at the pro-evo blogs and the relish with which they're looking forward to the Dover trial. It's not as if our side doesn't have a strong case on its merits alone, but the missteps by the defense (paying $100,000 to Dembski as an expert witness and then deciding not to use him, and the overt admissions by members of the School Borad that the policy is religiously motivated) have most of us believing this case is a slam-dunk, and will be a major defeat for the IDers.


28 posted on 09/19/2005 4:59:09 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.

No. It is really boiling over in school board meetings around the country. That's it.

29 posted on 09/19/2005 5:03:46 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
What's so wrong with testing religious beliefs?

Not a thing, as long as you don't mind every religion "falsified".

Sure there's some archaeological evidence that's interesting to several religions in the middle east. But I'm sure there's archaeological evidence that Jim Jones used Koolaid too. It does nothing to verify the existence of any deity.

Quite a bit more evidence of Roman "gods" than anything relating to Christianity.

At least the Jews have the wailing wall and other archaeological evidence that there was an old faith (and nothing that proves a deity). Christians have just about zip.

When you get science to invent a machine to tell you that God is present, and which "god" he is, then let me know.

30 posted on 09/19/2005 5:04:40 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class...

Not true! Yellow journalism at it's finest!

31 posted on 09/19/2005 5:05:38 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

If you aren't interested in religion, you will have no problem with ID being required to show som actual research, and being required to put forward some theory about the motives, objectives and limitations of the designer. Something that can be tested.


32 posted on 09/19/2005 5:06:44 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Another day, more of the same.


33 posted on 09/19/2005 5:15:27 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Agreed, but neither is evolution a science by the same standard, show me how the theory of evolution has been tested and prevailled. Here is some evidence that it is not, mind you it has only been going on for about 100 years:

In 1904, Walter S. Sutton, an American cytologist, decided there might be some connection between Gregor Mendel's 1860s research and the newly discovered chromosomes with their genes. A major breakthrough came in 1906, when Thomas Hunt Morgan, a Columbia University zoologist, conceived the idea of using fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) for genetic research. This was due to the fact that they breed so very rapidly, require little food, have scores of easily observed characteristics and only a few chromosomes per cell.

According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."

"Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. For example, Ernst Mayr reported on two experiments performed on the fruit fly back in 1948....

34 posted on 09/19/2005 5:15:47 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Perhaps you can tell us all how this:

Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of “irreducible complexity” shows that there is an intelligent creator

Can even remotely be called a scientific theory. At most, it's a poor hypothesis that fails testing by any scientific criteria.

35 posted on 09/19/2005 5:19:27 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dukeman

Intelligent Design

(We can't post stuff from the New Yorker, but this is just a very cool 'Queer Eye for the Omnipotent Guy' thing, super! )

36 posted on 09/19/2005 5:22:00 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman
Teach ID as much as you want just don't teach in in biology or any other science. Teach it in History.

Ancient history.

37 posted on 09/19/2005 5:24:18 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dukeman; All

The fact that more scientists admit there is validity to ID means that at some point people are going to have to come up with something better than character assassination to rebut it (though I doubt most are capable of it). The fact that it arouses such a reaction in its detractors (and given the personalities of such detractors) has me interested in it - bribing museums and attempts to censor through the courts doesn't indicate to me a very good foundation in scientific truth (unless filing a lawsuit was recently added to the scientific method). American Spectator had a good article about ID several months ago, and now I see Time is covering it.


38 posted on 09/19/2005 5:28:04 PM PDT by Hacksaw (Real men don't buy their firewood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

"The fact that more scientists admit there is validity to ID..."

This is not true. More scientists are not advocating ID.

"The fact that it arouses such a reaction in its detractors..."

Is because we are concerned about the scientific education of this country. ID (as stated by it's main proponents) is crap.
It has no place in a science classroom.


39 posted on 09/19/2005 5:32:53 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
The fact that more scientists admit there is validity to ID...

More? More than what?

You need to Google "Project Steve" and look at the Discovery Institute web site. There's been about 400 "scientists" who've signed a very generic statement from DI that basically says they have some problems with evolution (not saying that evolution is false, only that they have a problem somehow with it). Many scientists have requested that their names be removed from that list.

The Project Steve list implies a number of about 50,000 scientists that support evolution.

That means about 99+% of scientists disagree with you.

I hate to use the argument from authority method, but that's where the IDers have led us.

40 posted on 09/19/2005 5:35:24 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

That's because more than 2/3 of the general public doesn't have a complex understanding of biology.
***Then the subject matter should be reserved for complex biological systems, which would be 2nd year bio majors in college.

Attempting to use social arguments against scientific explanations is a gross misapplication of both.
***Ok, where is the misapplication?

And that's exactly the wrong way to discuss evolution or any other scientific theory.
***But it is exactly the right way to discuss where and how and when such a morally disturbing theory should be taught to students.


Scientific explanations are not invalidated just because people don't like the implications, though there are a lot of creationists who seem to think that this is the case.
***True enough.

Because, as has been explained before, there is no "controversy" within science.
***Then you're just restating, so I'll restate: It looks like a scientific controversy to me and 2/3 of the general public, which is significant in a social policy discussion. There was an interesting line in the TV series "Law & Order"... "if enough people think it's about race, then it's about race". If enough people think it's about a scientific controversy, then it is about a scientific controversy. There wasn't enough hard science for it to be a slam-dunk when it was presented to that smart guy who is president & has a Harvard education & all that, so he did not see enough reason to relinquish his confirmatory bias. He sees a scientific controversy, I see one, and so do 2/3 of the general public, all of whom are interested in what should and should not be taught to kids in classrooms.

The case for ID is based upon a gross misunderstanding or misstating of biology.
***Then it won't last long in the real hustle & bustle world of genuine science. The case for astrology is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the effects of gravity, but we don't see the president of the US pushing to have astrology taught in science classes. Those IDers sure are pesky with their counterpoints, that speed of light/fine structure constant thing, and lots of scientific articles to read.



Meaning that there's no purpose in putting it in a science classroom. Why teach non-science in a science class?
***I see plenty of purpose. It serves as a good punching bag, if nothing else. The fact is that a lot of scientific work in this evo/abio side was kind of sloppy before the criticism started pouring in. I agree that we shouldn't be teaching non-science in a science class, and I see evo/abio as a philosophical conclusion based upon science, but not science. Neither side belongs in a science classroom with their conclusions. And when either side is taught, they should be side-by-side and let students see for themselves. One way I look at evo is kinda like when I first ran across imaginary numbers -- the square root of negative one. Even though it doesn't really exist, there's a whole branch of math based upon it, and it generates some very useful & interesting results such that in some electrical engineering pursuits, it's better to look at it from that perspective than from the time domain perspective. With this math, 2 + 2= 4, yes, but it is seen as 2 + 0*i + 2 + 0*i = 4 + 0*i. And the evo/abio philosophy, when you look at it from an inductive spiritual perspective, comes up bankrupt. The very next thing in that perspective is to "know the tree by its fruits" and start searching for contingent social results, whether good or bad. And folks start seeing some nasty things associated with accidentalism.


This is another attempt at someone who has only heard a smidgen of media-filtered information who now thinks that they have a deep understanding of relativity.
***There it is. It didn't take long, did it? Thank you very much for your ridicule and displaying your genuine attitude. You can go on with the comforting knowledge that you are a true holy warrior for your chosen philosophy/religion. This is a social policy discussion; it does not MATTER if I have a deep understanding of relativity (or even if I think I have a deep understanding of it). For your colleagues' sake, I'll spell it out just a little bit. Let's say the pres took a position that Astrology should be taught side by side with evolution. In one stroke, it becomes a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). With responses like yours, you really let the cat out of the bag. But… come on… you're just toying with me, right? You know that I'm not a biochemist so you're just moving in for the kill like a Viking kitty… ;-)




No, it isn't. Please try to do some research on the topic before making such dismissive statements.
***Yes, it is. Is that what the level of discussion has digressed to, 2nd grade antics of yes it is, no it isn’t? I have done some research on the topic and I started entering some crevo threads. I have realized that I don’t need to be a biochemist to engage in social policy discussions. Once you start going into policy-land, politics takes a front seat and guys like GWB have their say. Scientists start to be looked at from the prism of what the benefit is to society. GWB must have consulted top-level science advisors, and apparently it was not enough to remove his confirmatory bias. After consulting his science advisers on a public policy issue, George chose differently than how you and they see it; if mainstream science was answering ID properly at that point, the pres probably would have seen it in a more scientific light. Mainstream science failed at that point. Take it up with George if you don't like it. When I look through the mass of material, I see a big scientific controversy with eggheads on one side ridiculing eggheads on the other side.


41 posted on 09/19/2005 5:35:30 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

It is something I posted previously:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1475252/posts
Do you believe in accidentalism? (Creation vs. evolution)

I have a philosophical bias against what I call the "haps": The root word of Happen, Happy, Happenstance is hap, which is another word for luck. I heard it over & over again in NON-SCIENCE classes that we got here by chance, we evolved by chance, and that it was "proven" science. I presently think the evo haps stuff is baloney, the abiogenesis haps stuff is even more baloney, and that all of this stuff belongs in a philosophy class, where there is a constant dialog about inductive pursuits, what you call "something we don't know is true".


42 posted on 09/19/2005 5:39:24 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
I heard it over & over again in NON-SCIENCE classes that we got here by chance, we evolved by chance, and that it was "proven" science.

So you've decided you don't like evolution based on what you heard about it from people who know as little about it as you do.

Great. Just great.

43 posted on 09/19/2005 5:43:31 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: narby

What's so wrong with testing religious beliefs?
Not a thing, as long as you don't mind every religion "falsified".
***I don't. Like I stated before in a post to you, I think even Jesus didn't like religion. He called the religious leaders of his day, "vipers".

Sure there's some archaeological evidence that's interesting to several religions in the middle east. But I'm sure there's archaeological evidence that Jim Jones used Koolaid too. It does nothing to verify the existence of any deity.
***As we discussed prior to this, it verifies the fact that someone CLAIMED deity. The verification of deity status is an inductive pursuit. That's where people come in with their religious presuppositions & baggage.


Quite a bit more evidence of Roman "gods" than anything relating to Christianity.
***Great. Let's see some of it. Did any Roman claim to be God in the flesh and convince lotsa followers that it was true? Show me the history.

At least the Jews have the wailing wall and other archaeological evidence that there was an old faith (and nothing that proves a deity). Christians have just about zip.
***Very wrong. And I'm surprised to see you posting that after our discussion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1478794/posts
Why are you going off on christianity? You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Notice that we never really pursued Hirohito's claim to deity, because it was taken to be rooted in history. What you do with that information is your own thing.



When you get science to invent a machine to tell you that God is present, and which "god" he is, then let me know.
***As soon as you are intellectually honest enough to investigate the historical trilemma, you'll have what you need. It's all there.


44 posted on 09/19/2005 5:47:18 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
"It looks like a scientific controversy to me and 2/3 of the general public, which is significant in a social policy discussion. "

But absoltely meaningless in a scientific discussion. And that poll said that 48% of the population believes in evolution in some form or another. 2/3rds said that ID should be taught with evolution.

"There was an interesting line in the TV series "Law & Order"... "if enough people think it's about race, then it's about race". If enough people think it's about a scientific controversy, then it is about a scientific controversy."

"I have realized that I don’t need to be a biochemist to engage in social policy discussions."

This is a science discussion though.

"Scientists start to be looked at from the prism of what the benefit is to society. "

Science should be judged on the merits of the theory.

Laughably absurd analogy. If enough people think it's about a scientific theory, it says nothing if it is really a scientific theory. Most people don't know what a molecule is either.

" And the evo/abio philosophy, when you look at it from an inductive spiritual perspective, comes up bankrupt."

Science doesn't deal with the spiritual.

"When I look through the mass of material, I see a big scientific controversy with eggheads on one side ridiculing eggheads on the other side."

You see incorrectly.
45 posted on 09/19/2005 5:48:00 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy?

For one thing, it wastes valuable class time.

For another thing, intelligent design proponents use a lot of misinformation to advance their argument. Filling young minds with slick yet invalid and misinformed arguments is seldom beneficial to their education.

If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water.

It doesn't; that's precisely the point.

46 posted on 09/19/2005 5:49:21 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: narby
Ugh. Poor St. Thomas must be rolling over in his grave. It's such a shame to have such a great man's name dragged through the mud like this.

I wish the Catholic Church would copyright saints' names to prevent such things.

47 posted on 09/19/2005 5:51:11 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Laughably absurd analogy. If enough people think it's about a scientific theory, it says nothing if it is really a scientific theory. Most people don't know what a molecule is either."

This should have been right after the *Law and Order* quote. I need more coffee. lol
48 posted on 09/19/2005 5:52:49 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jess35
One proponent is not the same as an entire theory.

"us all" Love it.

49 posted on 09/19/2005 5:53:04 PM PDT by Tim Long (I'M CREEPING DEATH!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: js1138

If you aren't interested in religion, you will have no problem with ID being required to show som[e] actual research, and being required to put forward some theory about the motives, objectives and limitations of the designer. Something that can be tested.
***I really am not interested in religion. So why did I have to sit through NON-Science classes and listen to professors bloviate about their haps-based "viewpoints" which are philosophies at best, religions at worst? None of it should be presented in any class room EXCEPT for an origins class, where both sides can hammer it out. If one side is lacking in scientific thought, so be it. It will be obvious. I've heard it said on some crevo threads that the creationists don't police their own. Well, the haps folks don't police their own. Otherwise, why are so many college students being subjected to this stuff in NON-SCIENCE classes? And, it's a copout to claim that it's "only a scientific pursuit". Bull cookies. It's obvious to everyone that there are moral, social, sociological, religious, and inductive implications to the haps side, and it is good and right to limit any evil that results from those implications.


50 posted on 09/19/2005 5:54:55 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson