Established Member
The Washington Post had an interesting article on whether Intelligent Design should be discussed in class.
If you have to register just go to www.bugmenot.comTurning Darwin into an unassailable god without blemishes, Campbell said, doesn't give student brains enough exercise. "If you don't see the risks, if you don't see the gaps," he said, "you don't see the genius of Darwin."
Order of Kilopi
Apparently Darwin's chapter on inheritance is a mess, although i havent read the whole of the book, so in someway the chap does have a point.
Order of Kilopi
he didn't know about genes at the time is the reason why..
Established Member
I'm not aware of anyone who has said that we should teach *Darwin* except of course as scientific history.
What schools must do - what they have an obligation to do - is to teach things that are accepted by the majority of the scientific community. If that is evolution, then schools should teach evolution. If the time comes when evolution isn't what the majoriity of the scientific community thinks, then schools should stop teaching it - again, except in a historical context.
No theory and no scientist is unassailable, and I don't think that's what schools are telling kids.
Established Member
And no one (I hope) is telling that teachers should give one clean story when they are teaching evolution. They should clearly say that there are still gaps, and that while the theory is pretty solid, the actual evolution (e.g. of Homo) is still in debate, and new discoveries are still made every year. You don't bring it as it is a fixed story where we know all, but as a theory with solid foundations and exciting discussions about how it actually happened.Originally Posted by tofu
It's not because we don't know everything that is possible in chemistry, or because some of the first books about chemistry had huge errors, that chemistry isn't a well established science with a lot of undisputed facts and basics. The same goes for evolution...
Established Member
Agreed.And no one (I hope) is telling that teachers should give one clean story when they are teaching evolution. They should clearly say that there are still gaps, and that while the theory is pretty solid, the actual evolution (e.g. of Homo) is still in debate, and new discoveries are still made every year. You don't bring it as it is a fixed story where we know all, but as a theory with solid foundations and exciting discussions about how it actually happened.
It's not because we don't know everything that is possible in chemistry, or because some of the first books about chemistry had huge errors, that chemistry isn't a well established science with a lot of undisputed facts and basics. The same goes for evolution...
Established Member
From the nitpicking dept.
Actually, evolution isn't a theory. It is a fact. The theory that everyone confuses with evolution is Darwin's theory of natural selection in evolution. Big difference.
Of course, what do I know??? #-o
problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)
Order of Kilopi
shhhhhhh!!!! astrorockhunter, we know it's a fact but you try telling somepeople that!
Established Member
The problem I have is the teaching of so called "scientific creationism". Just to make it clear, I am an atheist. The scientific creationist agenda is an attempt to pervert science in a way that makes it believable to the average schmoo who really doesn't have a clue about science. They use psudeo science that sounds plausible if you aren't educated enough to question it.
As for Darwinism, he was on the right track. Like Einstein's theories it comes close but doesn't explain everything. I tend to favour Punctuated equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Order of Kilopi
You could say to creationist, right assume you're right(and I hate this next phrase but) where's the beef?
what has creationisum given to the world in terms of technology?
Order of Kilopi
I think Jay Mathews, that article's author, is confused. He stereotypes high school biology classes as boring exercises in rote memorization. He says, "Why not enliven this with a student debate on contrasting theories?" But intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a transparent ploy by a religio-political movement.
Further, Mathews' argument comparing a discussion of perpetual motion in physics classes or steady-state cosmology in earth science (?) classes doesn't come close to being a valid or meaningful comparison.
It is notable that every scientist and biology teacher that Mathews interviewed thought that discussing ID would be a distracting waste of valuable class time. The only instructor he found that considered the idea was a prof at a university teaching "the rhetoric of science and speech." Fine. More mature university students are much more capable of recognizing that ID is not science. Many high school students live with parents who are religious fundamentalists, and they're going to have trouble forming a rational response in such a debate.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
When you say evolution is a fact, not a theory, you overlook that evolution means more than one thing. To us it is a process, the means of change and speciation. That is the fact you refer to, and few claim it does not exist. But to many people, when yuo say evolution, what they take it to mean is where modern man came from, and that really is to them a separate issue. Until you establish just what you and they are meaning withthe word, you may wind up arguing at cross purposes. The bible types will grant you that things evolve, but still not accept that we came from something else. So be clear that most of them don't mind the teaching that disease bacteria evolve into drug resistant forms, but don't want to hear that man evolved from an ape-like creature.
So when you tell a creationist that evolution is a fact and he disagrees, make sure you are both talking about the same meaning.
Likewise Fram's point. I think we should separate the theory and the examples. WHile we cannot state with certainty each step of the evolutionary path to modern human, that does not diminish our confidence that we nonetheless did arrive by means of that evolutionary mechanism. That is, the debate in science is not about evolution, but about the specifics of its path.
Member
I spend a lot of time debating YECism (Young-Earth Creationism) on a site called FactNet.com.
http://www.factnet.org/factnetcgi/discus/discus.cgi
If any of you guys or gals want a good laugh, or find a need to get your blood boiling for some reason, come on over and take a look. I sure could use some backup; the place is crawling with YECkies.In the first section, Religious Cults and Sects, there is a summary thread called "Doctines/Beliefs...", within which are a number of whacko threads, which I will not waste time discussing here in detail.
My main point here is to reinforce what Enzp wrote:
One of the biggest rhetorical frauds they perpetuate, quite deliberately, is that there is only one definition of the word "theory", and that it means "conjecture, guess, or wishful thinking". They refuse to acknowledge that science has always used one of the alternate definitions of that term, which has nothing to do with theirs, and which is also listed in the dictionary under "theory".So when you tell a creationist that evolution is a fact and he disagrees, make sure you are both talking about the same meaning.
So to listen to them, "evolution" is no more than a guess.
Their knowledge of actual science is limited to reading scripture, and the debate style they use is usually to simply ignore any questions raised about the absolute impossibility of the literal interpretation of the bible, particularly regarding the Noahic Flood and the creation of the entire universe in six 24-hour days. If they do happen to screw up the gall to defend their "theories", they proceed, again quite dishonestly, to pull quotations by anti-ID scientists like Gould totally out of context, make up other quotations, misinterpret and misrepresent actual scientific facts and observations, and come up with the wildest fairy tales you can imagine. Nearly all of what they post is copy/pasted from YECky sites like the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), a fraudulent oxymoron, because they do NO research whatsoever. And this passes for critical thinking for all of them. Oh, and I forgot the most telling evidence they have - scripture.
But usually they will NOT defend YECism at all. Their whole MO is to nitpick real science, a favorite ploy being to point out a couple of times that contaminated samples gave incorrect results from carbon-dating and extrapolate that to mean that everything about real science from every discipline is false, and contend that leaves only ID as true. This is of course the "argument from ignorance" on the grandest scale imaginable.
Also they like to come up with humorous (to them), totally inapt (and inept) analogies. Their favorite to counter evolution is that they say getting a modern strand of DNA from the primordial soup is a likely as having a tornado whip through a junkyard and assemble a fully-functional 747. How logical.
Led by frauds like "Dr." Kent Hovind, who got his "doctorate" from a diploma mill on the back of a matchbook cover, and the ICR, this is a very dishonest and deceptive crowd we are dealing with. Don't put it past them to lie outright; after all, it is the evil Satan-worshipping heathens they are fighting, so any tactic is justifiable for them. Just as a side note, many of these "scientific" theologians make quite a comfortable living out of this blarney, and they'll fight like hell to keep it going.
Order of Kilopi
with the definition of a theory being that it is a guess then it could be said the millions of people around the world have a "theory" about what the next lottery numbers are going to be
Order of Kilopi
Of course--it's education. We all know education is by definition boring, don't we?
Established Member
The singular fact that escapes many is, never confuse belief with knowledge.
Order of Kilopi
Once again. Here's an illustration of a person who is answering the wrong question. Scientists have not articulated their side well and this is the typical result.Amazingly, neither pro- nor anti-intelligent design people like the idea of injecting their squabble into biology classes. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, said that requiring its use in schools would turn their critique of evolution "into a political football." Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education Inc. in Oakland, Calif., said it would distract from proven evolutionary research, crowd out other topics and create confusion.
Some fine biology teachers said the same thing. Sam Clifford in Georgetown, Tex., said that intelligent design is "a piecemeal, haphazard concoction" that he does not have time for. Dan Coast at Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County said that a dissection of intelligent design in his class would be seen by some students as an attack on their religion. They all seemed to be saying that most U.S. high school students and teachers aren't smart enough to handle such an explosive topic. But how do we know if we keep paying expensive lawyers to make sure the experiment is never conducted?
Discovery Institute says they don't want ID's critique of evolution discussed. Intelligent design is xyz. Teachers can't handle such "an explosive topic." "Paying expensive lawyers to make sure the experiment isn't conducted?"
Nonsense! Scientists haven't articulated that the science is and always was open to legitimate debate. Darwinism isn't a theory, evolution is. And, this isn't an explosive topic when properly explained. And no one is "paying expensive lawyers" to keep any legitimate debate out of any science classroom.
That last sentence is the kicker. The impression is legitimate debate is being suppressed. We all know it isn't. We know what is being suppressed is illegitimate debate. But we have failed to make that the question. The question remains controlled by IDers even when being discussed by this declared evolution science supporter.
And here we have the bad science of ID slipped in as if we are not willing to address the already disproved concept of irreducible complexity. Apparently the author of this article is unaware of the science of genomics, despite the fact it is a well defined and complete compliment, and, key to the theory of evolution.They answered Gould's favorite question: If you are real scientists, then what evidence would disprove your hypothesis? West indicated that any discovery of precursors of the animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian period 500 million years ago would cast doubt on the thesis that those plans, in defiance of Darwin, evolved without a universal common ancestor.
I am intrigued by the mention of the class on the rhetoric of science and speech.
Established Member
My question has always been "Who designed the designer?". Of course the answer always is that "He always had been and will be".
Well, that really clears it up.
Order of Kilopi
How do the IDers explain how this Intelligent Designer actually make all the organic life forms? was it some sort of mind control technique?
Did he have a big computer and a CAD system and a big factory with elves working away taking his designs from R&D to the production stage.
If I designed something I would then have to do something with the designs in order for it to become a reality.
Established Member
I don't think we'll ever know the ultimate question: Why was the universe made?
There will always be religion and there will always be science, and the two will never coexist.
Order of Kilopi
I don't think co-exsistance is the problem, more like them both telling the other what to do. They are incompatible in the way they operate but they CAN co-exist. In the same way as CHristianity can co-exist with Islam for example..
Established Member
Frog march wrote:
....yeah....that's working real well...>koff<don't think co-exsistance is the problem, more like them both telling the other what to do. They are incompatible in the way they operate but they CAN co-exist. In the same way as CHristianity can co-exist with Islam for example
I think what irritates people about Christianity is when they think that they are purposely refusing to look honestly at the facts. It must be maddening to talk to someone who will not be honest, and who will do backflips to avoid facing facts. On the other hand, for Christians, it's appalling that someone assumes that you are irrational simply because you believe in a Higher Power with whom you have a relationship (stop laughing. I am rational; the voices in my head say I am). So, as far as co-existence goes, perhaps a little circumspection is best; if you are shouting at a closed door(mind), there's nothing to be gained there. But I think there are far more Christians who aren't afraid of scientific truth than not -- be hopeful!
I don't know what they say, as apparently I'm not one, according to what I've read. But I do believe that God created and is creating...and that it's less like manufacturing than like art; God creates as an inevitable expression of Him as Life.How do the IDers explain how this Intelligent Designer actually make all the organic life forms
geokstr, I'll follow your link and have a look at the forum. Sometimes it's better for the religious to talk to other religious people. We'll see.
Order of Kilopi
R&D
I think an analogy would be like a composer and an orchestra, the composer writes the score but the orchestra has to turn that into a symphony.......
Established Member
I like that analogy; of course, we would have God as composer and conductor. And me in the back messing up.
Senior Member
Whew...for a moment there, I thought I was on the wrong BB, with all this "god talk".
Might I remind everyone that there is a reason that the BA frowns on religious discussions. :wink:
Established Member
Cue the Ainulindalė....
Order of Kilopi
Is there a need or reason for a 'why'?
How do you know there will always be religion?
Established Member
There's a big difference between intelligent design and biological evolution.
We know how biological evolution works. In detail. With examples. And experimental evidence. The mechanism is clear.
Intelligent design rests on an unproven and unevidenced hypothesis: that there exists a supernatural intelligence.
When teaching science, there is an obligation to show evidence. It's quite difficult to show good science by teaching a process which relies on a mechanism for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.
That said, good teachers know darned well that it's necessary to teach students to think and not just memorize. Thinking is always good, questioning is always good.
However, there would be a firestorm of protest if science teachers presented intelligent design in a scientific context. If they asserted in science class that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the crucial mechanism of ID, God, exists in reality, there would be a terrific howl. Theists would not tolerate a direct questioning of the existence of God on scientific grounds in a classroom.
Yet intelligent design requires the God hypothesis.
How do you discuss a theory without discussing its necessary mechanism of operation?
So it's a social problem more than anything. It is socially unpalatable to discuss intelligent design in terms of its necessary mechanism of operation, and so the discussion slides sideways into the semantics of 'theory' versus 'fact' and the like.
Which is a great boon for theists, since it gives them a free pass on the central problem with their hypothesis.
Order of Kilopi
I thought Intelligent Design was more an anti-evolution theory than an alternative to it. What I mean is that it seems IDers spend their time pointing out supposed holes in the theory of evolution, but they're not particularly concerned with offering a different theory that explain the same facts, because one of their central ideas is that the facts of biology cannot be explained by science alone.
Established Member
Yeah, and that annoys me incredibly (speaking both as a Christian and as a supporter of science). It's the Big Lie at work. "Oh, we're just interested in all the scientific viewpoints being considered!" And, "we're not saying God did it, it's just obvious that an intelligent force was at work. We're not trying to say what it was."
Baloney.
It's all about driving the Wedge into natural science to make it conform to a certain subset of Christian beliefs (almost exclusively) by attacking real science, generating a "controversy" out of nothing, and pretending it's all motivated by a dispassionate spirit of rational inquiry. A theopolitical strategy, explicitly laid out in the "Wedge" approach, yet butter would not melt in the mouth of its practitioners as they continuously, repeatedly, determinedly, lie. What sort of Christian behavior is that?
And why do people buy it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote