Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolutionists are Just a Bunch of Homos" Placemarker

[wireman]

So give those who believe a break from the ridicule and dogmatism.

I have ridiculed no one. I have simply stated a fact.

What I do or don't believe in can hardly be surmised from what I wrote.

Unfortunately it seems to me that the people who are the most dogmatic and judgmental often seem to be those who profess to "believe" the most.

That's a shame.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Fortunately, I know only the bottom 5% of so-called scientists have so little to do as to consider this a "pressing issue"..."

"Are there that many gay "scientists"?"

Actually, the 5% figure corresponds to the percentage of scientists in all fields who reject evolution. Very interesting...

[gondramB]

>>Science which even thinks about "defending itself" from intelligent design can't be much of a science to begin with.<<

You think that it wrong for an academic area that is vital to the country to object when people try to make them teach something with no basis that can be observed?

Would the military object if non-military tried to force them to teach military theory based on biblical strategy?

Would air traffic controllers object to laymen forcing them to teach in way they felt would compromise air safety?

Would medical schools object to being forced to teach medicine based on religion without evidence?

I submit that science would be foolish to no object - and frankly so should anyone who cares about the country or the future of Christianity.

[Stultis]

"Intelligent Design" is a form of Theistic evolutionism. It doesn't interpret the Genesis account literally or accept traditonal Biblical/Jewish chronology.

Nor, however, does it affirmatively accept standard scientific chronologies of earth history. It refuses to address or incorporate such issues, period. It refuses to even speculate about when, where or how "design" is actually instantiated. Thus it is vacuous to the point of being useless as a scientific hypothesis.

The reason other evolutionists are opposed to this particular form of Theistic evolution

We're mainly opposed to it as (being falsely represented as a viable and established) science, not as theology or philosophy.

is that in it G-d slips out of the world of human philosophical speculation into the world of fact,

Actually it doesn't, because, again, ID proponents refuse to address, even speculatively, the question of actual instantiation of "intelligent design" events. Thus ID is systematically, and intentionally, detached from reality.

and most even "Theistic" evolutionists believe G-d should remain safely behind the Magical Door that also conceals Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

This only follows if the scientific account of reality is held to be complete complete -- requiring no supplementation from philosophy, religion, art, etc -- and held to be the only valid account. Most would brand this view "scientism".

[wyattearp]

Tastes like chicken?

If man were created in God's image, then I suspect that it would taste more like pork.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If man were created in God's image, then I suspect that it would taste more like pork."

I don't want to know how you know that.... :)

[PatrickHenry]

Shouldn't the Scientologists be in the Inter Faith Network?

Maybe. Are they into ID?

[wideawake]

Good analysis.

It is amazing how radically new this view of religion is and yet how universally it is now held.

It's not that new - in the XIIth century theologians at the University of Paris were condemning the notion that: "Something may be true in philosophy but false in theology and vice versa."

And Bl. Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X were pretty vocal about identifying and condemning this muddleheaded approach to reality.

[js1138]

Would the military object if non-military tried to force them to teach military theory based on biblical strategy?

Would that Biblical military strategy include killing every man, woman, child, fetus, dog, cat and bunny rabbit among the enemy?

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, the 5% figure corresponds to the percentage of scientists in all fields who reject evolution. Very interesting...

Among biologists it's about 1/3 of 1%. I can post my Project Steve analysis again if necessary.

[gondramB]

>>The reason other evolutionists are opposed to this particular form of Theistic evolution is that in it G-d slips out of the world of human philosophical speculation into the world of fact, and most even "Theistic" evolutionists believe G-d should remain safely behind the Magical Door that also conceals Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.<<

That is often not true. I'm a Christian. I believe in ID. My objection to ID is to teaching in Science class unless and until it is supported by enough evidence that the scientific community views it as a reasonable possibility. I don't think that will happen because I think God wants faith, not demands for proof.

[mlc9852]

Alrighty then!

[gondramB]

>>Would that Biblical military strategy include killing every man, woman, child, fetus, dog, cat and bunny rabbit among the enemy?<<

I'm sure what your point is. My point is that we would never ask the military to fight based on biblical strategy - we expect them to fight based on what they have learned that works in the modern world.

[js1138]

Weapons change, but generals still study Biblical military strategy. That's one thing the Bible seem to have right.

[atlaw]

Notice the evolutionists avoid answering the question of whether Jesus was lying when He said that God created Adam and Eve.

Of course He wasn't lying. And just as obviously, He never said or explained the "how" of that creation. For that matter, the "how" of creation isn't anywhere in the Bible. The so-called Biblical literalists simply skip over that inconvenience (and usually fill in the "how" gap with a juvenile image of God as a cheap magician waving a magic wand and sprinkling fairy dust).

[gondramB]

>>Weapons change, but generals still study Biblical military strategy. That's one thing the Bible seem to have right.<<

I don't really understand what you are talking about. I would have said you you had been condescending about the bible all morning and now you seem to suggest basing military strategy on it.

[Virginia-American]

Skeptical discussion of Scientology

They seem to have their own version of evo, including Piltdown Man.

Xenudidit

[dread78645]

We are talking about the FSM, right?

Chicken Tetrazini.

His Noodliness comes in many shapes and flavors.

[Moby Grape]

As with liberalism in general, opponents of intelligent design wish to muzzle alternative presentation (as seen when conservative speakers are blacklisted or shouted down when they attempt to speak on University Campuses) .

If the man-from-monkey crowd are secure in the correctness of their theories, believing that in honest debate their view will prevail, then why are they attempting to "burn the books" of those with an alternative view?