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]

Ok, I'll stop. lol

About Abbott and Costello; I grew up watching them too, every Saturday a local channel would play one or two of their movies, and since we had one TV at the time and only no cable, I usually watched them. My favorite was Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

That reminds me; later on Saturdays another channel would play the most dreadful kung fu movies, with guys climbing walls and floating in the air, and with horrible dubbing. One guy always sounded like Cary Grant, and would say something like (in Cary Grant type voice), "Hey you! Your Kung Fu is not bad! Mr. Lee wants to see you. Judy Judy Judy."

Ok, that was not EXACTLY what they said, but you get the picture. Just bloody awful.

And I watched every one and ate em up. lol To be 10 again... :)

[andysandmikesmom]

I had to look that one up...got the meaning...along the way, I found a nifty website with grand pictures of Italy, the California coast, and inter alia, many wondrous sights...thanks...

[andysandmikesmom]

Indeed, being 10, during the 50s was wonderful...

We always went to the movies on Saturdays...it was a full day event...first came the coming attractions....then came a number of cartoons, then came the latest episode in the serial, either Buck Rogers, or some other serial, and then the selected short, which often was one of the Bowery Boys(Dead End Kids)..loved Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey...then we settled in for not just one, but two, yes two, full length shows...we were at the movies from late morning, until early evening, with our friends, eating bunches of popcorn, and candy, and pop, and having such a grand old time...

It was indeed, a wonderful era to grow up in...

[andysandmikesmom]

You have indeed, listed most of the mantras...I cant think of much you missed...how long will it take, before we hear someone actually seriously assert such stuff?...not long, I reckon...

It all does more appropriately belong in the ELIZA mode...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"and then the selected short, which often was one of the Bowery Boys(Dead End Kids)..loved Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey..."

I remember them! Their stuff was usually came on after Abbott and Costello. My father tells me my grandmother always got a big kick out of them, which is funny for me, since I hardly remember her laughing much. I remember then in their first movie, Dead End, with Humphrey Bogart as the heavy. It wasn't comedy at all. It's odd home they evolved into such goofballs.

"we were at the movies from late morning, until early evening, with our friends, eating bunches of popcorn, and candy, and pop, and having such a grand old time..."

I wish I could have experienced that. I grew up in the 70's and 80's. I did get to go to drive in movies though; I saw Star Wars that way. I was stuck in the 3rd seat of a station wagon, and I really didn't follow it that well. It wasn't really until they started appearing on TV that I understood the plot.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I humans were made from dirt, why is there still dirt?

[andysandmikesmom]

Yes, its so that in that movie Deadend, that is where the deadend kids or the Bowery Boys, as they came to be known later, first started out...and Humphrey Bogart was so great as the really, really bad guy...I think Joel McCrea played the good guy...it was really an odd little movie, not at all a humorous movie, but somehow those Deadend kids turned out to be funny in their later selected short movies...

Yes, going to the movies in the 50s was quite the experience...I grew up in Chicago...there was two big movie theatres within a few blocks walking distance from our house...we would get the newspaper on Friday, and see what the lineups would be for Saturday, at both movie theatres...then we would have to decide who had the better lineup for that weekend, and we would all to go that show...I had a brother, and two boy cousins who lived downstairs of me, so all four of us would always go together..we all got a vote as to which movie theatre we were going to and majority won..I never remember us having a tie vote...we always went together, per our parents requests..I guess, altho they did not worry about us like todays parents have to worry about their children, still our parents thought there was some bit of safety in numbers, so they insisted that all 4 of us went together to the movies...we usually always met up with neighborhood friends, or friends from school, so in addition to watching the flicks, we just had fun being together...

One of the movie theatres, even had a live show, in between the two main films...it was called 'Uncle Bob and His Lucky Stars'...but thats a story for another post...suffice it to say, we kids felt that Saturdays were the best day ever...films, cartoon, friends, stomach churning foods, and no school...what more could a kid wish for?

[PatrickHenry]

I[f] humans were made from dirt, why is there still dirt?

If you eat a banana, why are there still bananas?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you eat a banana, why are there still bananas?"

Better yet, if we came from monkeys, why are there still bananas?

[Konacoast]

It has been my experience as both a scientist (registered professional geologist with over 20 years experience) and a part-time high school science teacher that the real threats to science in education are MTV, video games, drugs, parent apathy, a culture of ignorance, the NEA, blatant liberal bias in textbooks, and student disinterest. Beyond that, bureaucrats with liberal agendas in agencies like EPA, NOAA, and Fish and Wildlife are doing incalculable harm to science daily by forcing real scientists to reach, or at least espouse, conclusions that are based on philosophy and not scientific endeavor.

By contrast, I've never seen any threat to the science of geology caused by ID OR creationism, however misguided any of their efforts have been.

It strikes me as very odd that real threats to science, and there many more than I've listed, aren't raising near the furor that ID is. Why not spend your time and effort tackling the far more serious threats? Your assertion that "education is under attack", presumably by proponents of ID, ignores the far more serious ways that education has been rendered almost useless by a know-nothing, incompetent generation of bureaucrats.

Finally, since we find religious practice is and has been nearly ubiquitous in human cultures throughout history, it is obviously a product of the evolutionary process. Have you considered the ramifications of manipulating evolution in such a way that this aspect of it is put at risk? Doesn't that mean that you're "playing god"?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It has been my experience as both a scientist (registered professional geologist with over 20 years experience) and a part-time high school science teacher that the real threats to science in education are MTV, video games, drugs, parent apathy, a culture of ignorance, the NEA, blatant liberal bias in textbooks, and student disinterest."

Those things are all valid concerns; I don't see why people should sit by and let yet another attack on science go unchallenged because it's not the only attack. The problem is important for the Republican party as well, as it does them no good to be seen as the party of anti-science Luddites. ID/creationism is a loser at the polls. The more the Republican's become associated with it, the easier it will be for the Dims to get elected.

"By contrast, I've never seen any threat to the science of geology caused by ID OR creationism, however misguided any of their efforts have been."

It teaches students that evidence is not needed and that supernatural explanations are as valid as empirical data. Science is the greatest methodology that humans have for gaining knowledge about the physical world. ID weakens that and promotes sloppy reasoning.

"Finally, since we find religious practice is and has been nearly ubiquitous in human cultures throughout history, it is obviously a product of the evolutionary process."

Maybe yes, maybe no.

"Have you considered the ramifications of manipulating evolution in such a way that this aspect of it is put at risk? "

Evolution isn't atheistic, so what ramifications are you talking about? Not teaching ID/creationism is not an attack on religion.

"Doesn't that mean that you're "playing god"?"

No.

[Coyoteman]

I've never seen any threat to the science of geology caused by ID OR creationism, however misguided any of their efforts have been.

You have a better union?

It has been my experience as both a scientist (registered professional geologist with over 20 years experience)

It has been my experience as ... a scientist (registered professional archaeologist with over 35 years experience) that those of us who follow the evidence and support the theory of evolution are under attack by a small but vociferous group whose religious belief runs counter to scientific findings.

Finally, since we find religious practice is and has been nearly ubiquitous in human cultures throughout history, it is obviously a product of the evolutionary process. Have you considered the ramifications of manipulating evolution in such a way that this aspect of it is put at risk? Doesn't that mean that you're "playing god"?

Who is "manipulating evolution"? Scientists are following where the data leads. Religious believers have the answers already, and are trying to manipulate science so that it conforms to their beliefs.

Are you comfortable with that? I am not.

[Coyoteman]

Why are there still monkeys?

I've asked same question, but evolution has no answer.

You are still ignoring my long and detail answer to this exact question [with "apes" instead of "monkeys"]:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1625993/posts?page=795#795

just upthread.

Did you not read it?

Or did you not agree with it? (You posted no rebuttal.)

I would enjoy debating the issue with you, but you have to address the issue, not just engage in drive-by-postings.

[dread78645]

Who is on first.

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whatcha asking me for?

George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East!
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N. !

[dread78645]

If you eat a banana, why are there still bananas?

And what does that have to do with Roman numerals?

[CloseEncounters]

"Even the definition of science itself has fallen victim to political attack; the state board of education in Kansas decided that the supernatural may now be taught as science in the classroom." (This is a key statement that indicates that the writer is locked into an empiricist/naturalist/materialist worldview and philosophy. This statement has NOTHING to do with science. CE)

"Judge William R. Overton stated in his opinion (6) that creationism fails to be a science because it fails to satisfy the following requirements: "(a) it is guided by natural law; (b) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (c) it is testable against the empirical world; ..." (This shows that the judge in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education imposed his personal philosophy of science on the law. Again - these are NOT scientific statements. They are statements of philosophy. CE)

"...premise for the arguments of Behe and other ID proponents is deeply flawed, scientifically and philosophically" (Again, philosophy intrudes - this time explicitly. This author is saying that if you do not agree with his PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW that your view is not "scientific" and by implication false or untrue. CE)

..."seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies" ( I see... and this is a problem for science? How does this have anything to do with science? Is "materialism" - which is a philosophy with theological content - a mandatory assumption of science? Has science assumed a materialistic worldview - or have they offered proof? There CANNOT BE ANY scientific proof of materialism since it is not a subject that can be examined by experimentation or observation. To demand that science be materialistic is in itself ... UNSCIENTIFIC. CE)

"...a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped." ( I see. And how would any such research be published when they are excluded from scientific journals by the dominant prejudicial attitude of the editors and hounded from their jobs by Darwinist fanatics - remember the Smithsonian debacle? CE)

"We have spoken with high school science teachers who feel censored..." (Feel censored? Supporters of ID ARE CENSORED with the heavy hand of the law in addition to the persecution from Darwinists on the school boards an in the academic establishment! CE)

"Finally, the assault on evolution and science threatens our nation's scientific and technological leadership. Political and economic agendas are interfering with the free flow of scientific information. ... Other scientists have been cautioned about speaking out on global warming." (Right... like human cloning. And is "global warming" a scientifically proven fact? I think not. There is a great deal of controversy in scientific fields involving human ethics and human activity. These guys want to force everyone to accept a monolithic "consensus" imposed by themselves and their Darwinist/humanist/atheist/logical positivist friends. CE)

"A majority of people do not hold a literal young-earth interpretation of the Bible." (STRAW MAN! Neither do proponents of ID. CE)

"a mere training in . . . sciences . . . is no guarantee of a humane or skeptical outlook." (... and how is a "humane and skeptical outlook" a goal of science? Should it be? Why? This is a political/philosophical/religious position or world view. Science has nothing to say about it. What does this have to do with science? CE)

The agenda of these people is as plain as it can possibly be. They are not advocating science. They are advocating a philosophy and a religious worldview. They are the 21st century version of the Inquisition.

[Just mythoughts]

"They are the 21st century version of the Inquisition."

Now who is fear-mongering? Who was it that paid for the Inquisition, was it not the 'government', and who is paying for Darwinism, 'government'!

[PatrickHenry]

And what does that have to do with Roman numerals?

The mere mention of Roman numerals is enough to get this thread thrown into the backroom.