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.

[silverleaf]

You would have been right in tune with the 17th century Church when it prosecuted Galileo. Same arguments.

Unfortunately the suit started at Dover does not restrict its hostility to the science classroom, but to the entire public school curriculum, including classes in philosophy, which are constrained by threat of lawsuit from mentioning "science" or using science teachers in any discussion of creation. Even though science continues to make discoveries that support aspects of Creationist/design theory.

Then, the lawsuits spun form Dover now also turn on any teacher who is not qualified to teach "science"...for teaching any subject in any class that considers ID....because ID has scientific as well as philosophical implications.

Many of us were born at night, but not last night. And we recognize the underlying agenda is not regarding the purity of science education, but the total elimination of "ID" from any subject taught in any public school, by harassment of curriculum developers by and through the courts.

Sadly under the militant constraints sought by ID opponents...Einstein could not have been a public school instructor in cosmological theory or he would have been under threat of prosecution.

[ToryHeartland]

And don't forget, in the fundamentalist curriculum:

Linguistics: no Tower of Babel -- gone!

History: no end of inconvenient stuff --but the liberals have already finished this one off.

[Right Wing Professor]

Einstein could not have been a public school instructor in cosmological theory or he would have been under threat of prosecution.

Oh please.

[Dr. I. C. Spots]

What? and evolution is not faith based? It takes more faith for someone to believe that, given enough time hydrogen will turn into a man, than for me to believe that GOD created everything. All of our so called brilliant scientists can't even duplicate an ant with all their collective reasoning brain power and your trying to tell me that it all just happened all by itself? Cut all the mumbo-jumbo show me the validating experiments. At least bring back to life something that was once alive! There are no scientific facts to support evolution that's why 58% still don't believe it, after all the years of brain washing. ...and the arguments go on...
"Only a fool says in his heart, there is no GOD"

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Discussing the created world without crediting the Creator is plagiarism. You've assumed there is no author -- somthing you cannot know.

To demand no consideration of God when studying His creation is to insist that everything be taken out of context. If He is the author of all that exists, it is absurd to leave Him out of the discussion.

[ToryHeartland]

Like campaigning for Darwin.

Darwin is standing for parliament? Good news -- he was a life-long and stalwart supporter of the Conservative Party.

[Coyoteman]

There are no scientific facts to support evolution that's why 58% still don't believe it,

Here is one fact (a really cute one, too):

---

Fossil: Sts 5 Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You would have been right in tune with the 17th century Church when it prosecuted Galileo. Same arguments."

Sorry, he had a lot of evidence; ID has none.

"Even though science continues to make discoveries that support aspects of Creationist/design theory."

Absolute poppycock.

"Many of us were born at night, but not last night."

Let me guess; you just argue like it anyway?

"Sadly under the militant constraints sought by ID opponents...Einstein could not have been a public school instructor in cosmological theory or he would have been under threat of prosecution."

Nonsense. None of his theories mention a God. None of his equations require one. That's why there is no problem with talking about his theories in a science classroom. ID is theology. It belongs in Church.

I find it hysterical how the ID'ers/creationists need to play the abused, repressed victims just like all the little victim groups on the left do. The tactics are the same.

[ToryHeartland]

To demand no consideration of God when studying His creation is to insist that everything be taken out of context. If He is the author of all that exists, it is absurd to leave Him out of the discussion.

But how, in a science class, could you possibly include all the thousands of different beliefs held about God? Why not keep all that in philosophy and theology classes--surely it's already covered?

I would be fascinated to see someone show what a lesson plan and course outline would look like for an 'ID' based biology class--it is impossible to imagine.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It takes more faith for someone to believe that, given enough time hydrogen will turn into a man, than for me to believe that GOD created everything."

Not as much faith as it takes me to believe that someone can make such a silly statement as you made and still be capable of using a computer to type what you typed. Now THAT'S unbelievable. :)

""Only a fool says in his heart, there is no GOD"

Most people who accept evolution in the USA are Christians.

[wireman]

You've assumed there is no author -- somthing you cannot know.

You've assumed there IS an author -- something you cannot know either.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You've assumed there is no author -- somthing you cannot know."

Science isn't capable of providing an answer. Unfortunately, the author, if there was one, failed to leave his fingerprints on the manuscript. God is simply not capable of scientific examination.

[Elsiejay]

How is money made in opposing evolution?

I am deeply impressed by a "scientific" concept that demands protection by government, lest any school teacher give voice to any doubts or misgivings as to its veracity, or raise questions regarding its claims; and this in the land of Freedom of Speech.
The Theory (or is it now a Law?) of Evolution, in its application to questions of the origin of the phenomenon we call "life," and the existence of living entities in all their well-nigh incomprehensible diversity of form and function, is the only conceptual framework devised by the supposedly infallible human intellect that has been granted the status of exemption from the possibility of falsification.

[Junior]

How is money made in opposing evolution?

By raising funds from the benighted to fight Satan's worldly power grab. Anyone who doesn't think there is money to be made here hasn't come across televangelists.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"How is money made in opposing evolution?"

Books, pamphlets, seminars...

"I am deeply impressed by a "scientific" concept that demands protection by government,"

Not me; ID doesn't impress me at all.

"The Theory (or is it now a Law?)"

Theory is the highest state a claim can become in science.

"The Theory (or is it now a Law?) of Evolution, in its application to questions of the origin of the phenomenon we call "life," "

It doesn't make any claims about the origins of life.

"is the only conceptual framework devised by the supposedly infallible human intellect that has been granted the status of exemption from the possibility of falsification."

Nonsense. ID on the other hand, is unfalsifiable, because it posits a Designer (God) that can do anything, anywhere, anytime, in unknowable, unobservable, untestable ways.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I am not suggesting you include all the thousand of different beliefs held about God. I'm simply saying that demanding no mention of God is absurd. It is essentially demanding unbelief in God, since as author of all that exists, no true understanding of how His creation came into existence can be obtained without consideration of His power and nature. So when weighing the evidence, do not be so dogmatic about things untestable. I don't mind kids learning the different theories -- WITH RESPECT -- but the ridicule and dogmatism from the Church of Darwinism should end. The theory of Intelligent Design is just as valid as the theory of evolution. Frankly, I think Creationism is just as valid. But I would settle for an end to the rudeness, ridicule and absolutism.

[js1138]

The law isn't there to prevent teachers from discussing. It's there to prevent administrators from mandating the teaching of creationism as equivalent to science.

If you really want schools to engage in critical, scientific analysis of the Bible, go for it.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You've assumed there IS an author -- something you cannot know either.

Okay. So why be dogmatic either way? If there is an author, it is absurd to not consider His nature and attributes. So give those who believe a break from the ridicule and dogmatism.