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.

[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?

[Junior]

His Noodliness comes in many shapes and flavors.

Ramen, brother.

[wyattearp]

Not from personal experience, LOL.

From old reports about cannibalism in the South Pacific. The islanders referred to man as "long pig", because it looks, cooks, and tastes like pork.

[BibChr]

Bingo.

[Junior]

After reading Misquoting Jesus I wonder just how much of what Jesus supposedly said actually came out of his mouth.

[js1138]

You are correct. I have been out of sorts today. I get that way when the Bible gets brought up as a reference on science threads.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"As with liberalism in general, opponents of intelligent design wish to muzzle alternative presentation..."

It's the ID'ers taking the liberal route by crying victim and demanding *diversity* and affirmative action for a theological claim to be pushed into a science class.

"If the man-from-monkey crowd..."

You DO realize that most of the main proponents of ID have accepted common descent, right?

"then why are they attempting to "burn the books" of those with an alternative view?"

They are doing no such thing; they are asking for only science to be taught in a science classroom. ID is theology.

[gondramB]

>>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?<<


You don't see a difference between not wanting to be ordered to teach something they don't believe has a scientific basis versus book burning.

[js1138]

There really seem to be two completely different people: one concerned with love and good works, and one concerned with keeping the preachers gainfully employed.

[mlc9852]

What Christian has ever told you they believed God sprinkled fairy dust to create human beings?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Not from personal experience, LOL."

Well that's a relief! :)

[gondramB]

>>You are correct. I have been out of sorts today. I get that way when the Bible gets brought up as a reference on science threads.<<

These threads have a way of doing that - I deliberately stayed out of discussions with one Freeper last night for just such a reason - I responded to his posts but removed his name.

[mlc9852]

I guess we'll have to find out after we get to Heaven and ask Him.

[mlc9852]

I almost feel sorry for some of you - almost.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I almost feel sorry for some of you - almost."

I don't feel sorry for you at all. Your ignorance is self-inflicted. :)

I don't do pity.

[Dimensio]

What? and evolution is not faith based?

No, it is not.

It takes more faith for someone to believe that, given enough time hydrogen will turn into a man,

I do not see the relevance of this statement, as the theory of evolution does not state that hydrogen will turn into a man under any circumstances.

than for me to believe that GOD created everything.

To which "GOD", out of the thousands of often mutually exclusive deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you assume the existene of that particular deity and not any other? Also, what has this deity to do with the theory of evolution?

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?,

I am curious. Do you have an actual argument against the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or do you not understand what the theory actually states?

Cut all the mumbo-jumbo show me the validating experiments.

Are you unaware of the extensive fossil record? What of DNA evidence showing similar features, even in non-coding regions of DNA, across related species? At least bring back to life something that was once alive!

How would this validate evolution? Evolution says nothing regarding restoring life to the dead.

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

This is inaccurate. You should understand that even though you personally do not understand evolution, it does not logically follow that no facts support it. It only means that you are unaware of them.

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

This is an unsupported assertion, and also not relevant to a discussion on evolution.

[Quark2005]

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?

They don't. Science simply demands the same thing from IDers that it demands from evolutionary theory - if you want your theory taught in schools, you need to do research, submit papers for peer review, subsequently allow those papers to undergo scrutiny by the community at large, then have your major discovery published in one of the more major journals, at which point science textbook writers include your theory in college level textbooks, and eventually, if the theory is appropriate in comprehension level, it enters the secondary school teaching arena.

What IDers and creationists demand instead is special treatment, a.k.a. affirmative action for their theory, when its advocates aren't even really participating in the scientific method to start with.

Sort of like football fans complaining that the referee won't count imaginary touchdowns for one side just because their opponents have stronger players.

[Liberal Classic]

Just looked that up on Amazon.com, and it has generated some interesting reviews.

[mlc9852]

And your arrogance is self-inflicted so in a way we are even.

[Virginia-American]

If the man-from-monkey crowd are secure in the correctness of their theories, believing that in honest debate their view will prevail...

It did prevail, by about 1870 or so.

Also, we have come to expect dishonest debate from the anti scientists. Soundbutes, sophistry, equivocation, drug-induced perjury, ...

[Junior]

It's definitely worth the price. The author originally intended to read the original words of the Bible to know exactly what God had to say. During his researches and schooling, however, he came to realize the original words were long lost and it would be difficult to recreate them from all the different versions of Scripture that have come down through the ages (he mentions one of the early researchers in this field compiled 30,000 variations in the New Testament alone from only 100 different manuscripts).

It's a fascinating read as he weedles out what the original Scriptures may have said and explains why they were changed over the centuries (politics, typos, whatnot).

[atlaw]

Literalism can be debilitating, as your comment aptly demonstrates. My point is that many purveyors of so-called Biblical literalism do not address the Biblical vacuum regarding the "how" of creation, preferring to skip over the dilemma by simplistically explaining away creation as a kind of galactic parlor-trick performed by "God the Magician", as if God were wielding a magic wand and sprinkling fairy dust, and, perhaps unwittingly (although I doubt it at times), conveying precisely that image.

Indeed, this very same comic-book approach to biological development, diversification, and speciation is embedded in the "this-is-too-complicated-to-be-explained" core of ID.

[mlc9852]

It isn't that it is too complicated to explain, just that's it's too complicated to have just happened by random chance. Big difference.

[dread78645]

... Biblical military strategy. That's one thing the Bible seem to have right.

Spare the prostitute?

[PatrickHenry]

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

The Scientologists have their own version of evolution. I don't think it fits with anything else, so I can't use it. Scientology History of Man. But it's no less scientific than ID, so perhaps their "theory" also belongs in science classes.

[Zionist Conspirator]

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".

Exactly. This is what your side is. You don't recognize it because you say that science is incomplete without "art, philosophy, religion," etc. But what do you mean by "religion?" Obviously by including it in with art and philosophy you hold it to be speculative and subjective, with no claims to facticity whatsoever.

What you advocates of modernity refuse to recognize is that "religion" doesn't exist. There is only G-d, for Whom everything else in existence is only a garment. Jewish civilization knows nothing of a separate category called "religion" because all of life is regulated--to a totalitarian degree--by "religious" discipline whose ultimate source is HaShem Yitbarakh. The same "religion" that regulates business and forbids murder and theft also regulates the Temple service, prayer, forbids unkosher food, regulates sexual relations, etc. Life is a single seamless reality governed in entirety by G-d, which is why devout Jews recite special blessings for almost every occasion.

Orthodox Judaism is actually much like islam in its overall attitude. It's a shame the Jewish people over the past centuries of persecution have caught a bad case of "minority-itis." If they could confront the world with the actual contents of their religion (rather than its context as a minority faith absolutely dependent on modernity in order to survive) the world might look very different than it does now. It might even be redeemed!

BTW, "religion" in Judaism is statutory rather than voluntary and salvational, which means that Fundamentalist Protestants wanting to mandate school prayer and Jews opposing it is highly ironic. Too bad no body but me seems to notice this.

[puroresu]

I'll concur with others that your post is good, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything in it! :-)

#####The GOP has been far smarter than the Dems, except perhaps Bill Clinton, in building coalitions. They are currently splintering, mostly because of the hubris of religious right.#####

Gotta disagree! The GOP is in trouble right now because of RINOs who support big spending, oppose protecting the borders, want to reward illegal aliens with amnesty, and a variety of other issues. Whenever the GOP moves leftward, it sinks. We could include the Harriet Miers nomination in this category had President Bush not corrected his mistake with Sam Alito. The religious right is the most loyal constituency the GOP has. That's why the GOP feels it can ignore them, even betray them, and still count on their loyalty. Secular, "moderate" Republicans are far less loyal. A lot is made here of the fact that the pro-ID Dover GOP school board was ousted in favor of leftist Democrats, but that's because secular Republicans sided with the Democrats over conservative Republicans. In contrast, liberal Republican Arlen Specter won re-election in Pennsylvania because conservatives limited their opposition to him to intra-party activities. They fought him in the primary, but when he won it, they backed him in the general election.

If a secularist Republican beats a Christian Republican in a primary, Christian voters will support the secularist in the general election because of party loyalty, but a Christian who beats a secularist in a GOP primary always has to worry about the secularist's backers defecting to the Democrat in the general election.

Even Barry Goldwater, when he became militantly secularist after marrying a leftist woman in his old age, caused the GOP to temporarily lose a U.S. House seat in Arizona. When a pro-life Republican beat a pro-abortion Republican in the primary in Goldwater's home district, he endorsed Karan English, a hardcore left-wing feminist Democrat. She won the election, using Goldwater's endorsement to tar her opponent as someone trying to impose a theocracy on America.


####BTW, intruding religious beliefs into science class is not a 'mild request' in the minds of scientists.####


If science is truly neutral on religion as claimed, the requests of critics of evolution wouldn't ruffle many feathers.

If science is clueless regarding God's existence or non-existence, then a few minutes of class time discussing this fact wouldn't hurt anything.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And your arrogance is self-inflicted so in a way we are even."

As I hadn't even said anything to you before you pinged me with your un-Christian attitude and false *pity*, it is you who are both arrogant and ignorant. And you like it that way.

[Zionist Conspirator]

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.

See my previous post to Stultis.

What if instead of compartmentalizing life and labelling it we treated it as the wholistic gift of HaShem, the Supreme Reality? What if instead of asking "is this faith or science" we simply asked "what actually happened?" If you don't believe the Torah tells us "what really happened" perhaps you should study it a little more and learn its origin and transmission (about which most people are entirely ignorant).

[mlc9852]

You called me two names and I only called you one. You win.

[js1138]

No scientist claims evolution happens by random chance. The spin of a roulette wheel produces random results, but the house always wins. This is easy enough to observe and document. There is no magic involved. The house does not have to cheat.

Play roulette long enough and the house will have all of everyone's money. Randomness does not preclude movement toward order.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You called me two names and I only called you one. You win."

And who started with the attacks? Oh, that was you, in a fit of false pity and arrogant bile.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The biggest lie is the lie that the devil doesn't exist is a lie. (It's turtles all the way down.) Or perhaps the existence of the anti-anti-anti-anti-missle-missle-missle-missle-missle.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What if instead of asking "is this faith or science" we simply asked "what actually happened?"

That's what science is already doing, to the chagrin of Biblical literalists.

[Liberal Classic]

I've done something like this on my own by comparing my English Tanach with my King James Bible.

[RadioAstronomer]

EXCELLENT!

[mlc9852]

I admit to the false pity but deny the arrogant bile.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I admit to the false pity but deny the arrogant bile."

No doubt.

[RadioAstronomer]

It's an uphill battle, that's for sure.

Climbing a cliff is more like it. Sigh.

[puroresu]

#####But don't worry; ID still has plenty of support in the wide world of Islam.#####


This should make for some interesting adjudication somewhere down the line. Evolution is Politically Correct. So is Islam. As long as opposition to evolution can be given the "fundamentalist Christian" label, judges like Jones have no problem issuing a ruling. PC evolution = good. Non-PC "fundies" = bad. But when PC protected faiths start requesting that not only ID, but outright creationism be included in the curriculum, the unhittable baseball will encounter the unmissable baseball bat. Something will have to give once there are enough Muslims to have political clout equal to secularists.

[atlaw]

Not to be lawyerly about this (he said, leaving himself wide open), I suppose that depends on your definition of "random." If by random, you mean "without cause," then I would agree entirely with you. Once you proceed beyond principal causation, however, the issue gets murky. Even by fairly basic Biblical precepts, God is not a necessary driver for the minutia of His creation to operate.