Posted on 05/15/2006 5:29:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
When a U.S. district court ruled last December that the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district could not require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled—not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country. Well, their celebrations may have been premature, unless school policies are somehow exempted from the requirements of democracy.
Virginia Commonwealth University recently released the results of its “Life Sciences Survey,” which measures public attitudes toward scientific issues. Among the issues asked about was the “origin of biological life.”
By nearly a 5-1 margin, people believe that God, either “directly” or by guiding the process, was responsible for the “origin of biological life.” Only 15 percent agreed with teaching a strictly materialistic explanation.
Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.
These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans. Some even suggest that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes.
Nonsense! What’s on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It’s simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God—what theologians call the imago Dei. Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can’t erase it, and it’s also a recognition of the limits of science.
Father Richard Neuhaus captured this in the March issue of First Things. The “controversy,” he wrote, “is composed of a complex mixture of science, religion, culture, and politics.” This “complex mixture,” which involves every aspect of human life, cannot be settled by a single judge’s opinion or by the Darwinists’ propaganda. People simply know better, and they want to have a say in how their children are educated.
This is true not only of intelligent design. The same dynamic is at work in the embryonic stem-cell research debate. The scientific establishment insists that it must operate without interference from those it deems “irrational,” like Christians it considers enemies of progress.
Yet 56 percent in the same survey agreed that “scientific research doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society.” Fifty-two percent agreed that this research creates as many problems as solutions. For a group aspiring to god-like status, like scientists, this is bad news.
But it cannot be otherwise. Science does not operate independently of the larger culture. Scientists are not exempt from, as Neuhaus puts it, paying their respects to democracy. Thinking otherwise is not science: It is scientism, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth. And if this survey is any indication, Americans don’t buy it.
That’s why debates over science and culture will continue. They will continue until the scientific establishment—and the courts—acknowledge the limits of what science can and cannot tell us, and when it begins to give a say to the people on how they want their children educated.
"Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life and never has."
Of course, anybody older than 20 knows that's 100% hogwash, but the FR pro-evolution brigade keeps saying it (and believing it!) anyway.
bump for publicity
That would help, yeah. The attacks on science by the "intelligent design" folks are almost without exception based on their own failure to understand the subject to a minimum degree of competence, and not on any actual flaws in the science they're attempting to "question".
I'm going to predict the most common answer to your question: "Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life and never has."
Wrong. It would help if you understood *when* that answer is appropriately given, and *why*. You've obviously heard it before, but failed to understand the context. It's an inappropriate answer to the question that was asked *here*, and thus no one with an actual understanding of the topic is likely to give it.
It *is* an appropriate answer to *other* questions, when the question mistakenly attempts to link biogenesis with evolutionary processes.
Please, if you can't keep up with the discussion, don't attempt to "provide" answers.
Of course, anybody older than 20 knows that's 100% hogwash,
No, it isn't "hogwash", it's an accurate statement, but do feel free to "enlighten" us by explaining your reasons for making such an incorrect claim.
but the FR pro-evolution brigade keeps saying it (and believing it!) anyway.
Because it's true. Biogenesis and evolution necessarily work via different processes (ask for an explanation if you don't understand why), and thus are independent subjects -- one does not stand or fall depending on the success or failure of the other, just as the science of meteorology does not become invalid if various explanations of the origin of the atmosphere are true or not.
Please, try to learn about a topic before you attempt to "lecture' us on it.
When you are unable to correctly formulate what evolutionary theory says, do not be surprised that views on the subject are discounted.
Geez, tell me about it. They post about 20 threads a week to tell people the issue has been settled.
No, that's not why we post the threads, nor do we claim that the public debate has been settled, but thanks for sharing your misunderstanding with us.
Only 20? Add a zero to that you will be closer. Politics has almost become a sideshow on the CrevoRepublic forum.
Your tagline reads, "If God "created" the world through evolution, then Al Gore really did invent the Internet."
Please explain the "reasoning" you used to conclude that the consequent logically follows from the antecedent. We'll wait.
Until then, your tagline appears to be both illogical and false.
Only 20? Add a zero to that you will be closer. Politics has almost become a sideshow on the CrevoRepublic forum.
Well, we'll make you a deal -- if the anti-evolution folks promise to stop spreading lies about science and its proponents, we'll promise to stop telling the truth about them.
Really? You mean it? The forum will revert to the task for which its founder intended if everyone will agree with your side?
Deal. OK. We all agree with you.
Really? You mean it?
Yes, I do.
The forum will revert to the task for which its founder intended if everyone will agree with your side?
You really ought to work on your reading comprehension. That's not at all what I said -- I said nothing about anyone having to "agree with my side". I'd be happy if people would just stop telling lies and spreading false propaganda about it; whether or not they agree with "my side" or not is beside the point.
Deal. OK. We all agree with you.
Well thanks, I think, but that doesn't resolve the problem of people telling endless falsehoods and misrepresentations about science and its proponents. Perhaps you could ask them to stop doing that.
But, I just assumed (silly me) that if everyone here would agree with you, they would stop telling endless falsehoods and misrepresentations about science and its proponents as a natural consequence.
It was just be a more direct route. See? No silly disagreements.
I think I understand what you are saying. Evolution begins after abiogenesis. How abiogenesis happened isn't addressed. Does talkorigins also include facts about abiogenesis?
I clicked over to talkorigins and didn't see anything about abiogenesis. Do you know of any sites where I can find facts about this field?
Thanks.
Right, because evolutionary processes necessarily involve replication -- at least when talking about biological evolution, not "evolution" in the broader sense of the word as in "change over time".
And before something we'd call "life" first existed -- i.e., during the process (whatever it was) that brought the first living thing(s) into existence -- evolution in the Darwinian sense could not yet take place. So the process(es) which first formed life worked by principles separate from those of evolution itself.
How abiogenesis happened isn't addressed.
Not by *evolution*, anyway. They are of course addressed by *other* fields of research, involving non-evolutionary hypotheses.
And of course both abiogenesis and evolution, although separate fields involve separate processes, are both fields within biology, and of interest to biologists. The fact that many biologists are actively studying *both* fields, and switch back and forth between discussing one or the other, accounts for part (but not all) of the reason that many nonscientists mistakenly think that abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably intertwined, and that one somehow critically depends on the other.
Does talkorigins also include facts about abiogenesis?
Yes, since it concerns the broad subject of "origins" of all kinds (including the origin of life and cosmological origins), not just the evolutionary origin of new species.
Great statement!
It has a number of pages on the subject. I don't think it has a "master index" or good table of contents for them, though, so here's Google's search results for "abiogensis" within the talkorigins.org domain.
Do you know of any sites where I can find facts about this field?
Yes, but it's mostly a lot more technical than that for evolution.
Although there are a lot of complicating factors and interplay involved with evolution, the evolutionary process itself is pretty straightforward to explain and understand in concept. The same isn't true of abiogenesis -- it's pretty hard to get even a sketchy grasp on it without organic chemistry, the nitty-gritty details of biochemical metabolism and DNA replication, etc. quickly rearing their ugly heads. So there's not a ton of abiogenesis material "for the layman", and what little there is is mostly general descriptions instead of a more detailed coverage. Plus, it's such a quickly growing field that the way to best keep up with it is to read the technical science journals, which again is rather steep hill to climb for someone who just wants to "have a look" and see what's going on.
But I'll see what I can put together for you in an hour or two -- right now I have to run to the bank before it closes, I'll be back in a while.
In the meantime, if you have more specific questions of some sort about it, I might be able to focus my answers better on what you're most curious about, instead of just giving you a huge "data dump" in answer to your "what facts are known" question, which is pretty broad and sounds as if you're asking for a complete coverage, which will necessarily be huge.
"However, scientists are right to point out when something advocated as science by the lay public isn't science."
On a purely technical level, as related to science you are correct.... that is if one is Spock the fictional Vulcan and can separate the logic from the moral and emotional analyses that Humans make when forming their opinions.
Many self imagined objective science types can express quite a bit of out-rage when attacking a "notion" as "not of science", denoting moral and emotional out-rage...which of course raises the question as to whether they have truly reasoned said "notion" from a truly scientific basis.
We humans can't escape personal bias; we can at best account for it and factor such biases in as we strive to be as truthful, objective and as transparent as possible given the natures of our various circumstances and belief systems!
ID proponents has not been picked up by churches and televangelists, such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, James Dodson, and the like. ID is almost never mentioned on Christian radio.
Preachers know that sermons like, "The Intelligent Designer loves you; Accept irreducible complexity into your heart" does not lead parishioners to open their wallets and checkbooks---the essential ingredient of a successful sermon.
Many preachers consider that ID has muddied the waters from the simple notions of creationism, Noah's Flood, and Biblical inerrancy. The main creationist groups, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, have never embraced 'intelligent design'. They appreciated that ID diverted questions about Noah's Flood, which was impossible to justify on scientific grounds, to the "God issue", but they are unhappy that ID has never addressed moral values and skirts the issue of of who the "Grand Designer" is.
After Kitzmiller, the Discovery Institute could only whimper, claiming they never believed ID should be in schools. This directly contradicted their "Wedge Document." And the expert testimony sponsored by DI was caught in several contradictions at the trial, which Judge Jones pointed out. Even the Thomas Moore Center--the legal counsel engaged "to defeat the ACLU" ---was appalled by DI undermining their legal filings. So 'intelligent design' lost face big time with potential backers. DI has tried to reply with ad hominem attacks on Judge Jones, with a campaign to "teach the controversy", with attempts to brand critics as "liberal elites", but these attempts have backfired.
To make matters worse for ID and the DI, a distinct schism between Catholics and some evangelical Christians has arisen. Several important Catholic leaders have spoken out to say that the scientific theory of evolution is not inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. Discussions on this are certainly continuing, but the bottom line is that neither the Roman Church nor the Orthodox Church have become champions of "intelligent design". Without this support in the largest Christian congregations, ID has no real base.
Thanks. Like many here, my biggest pet peeve in these crevo discussions involves the missappropration or and complete misunderstanding of science.
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.