ID and Evolution

[satori]

I think i understand what you mean with this "false dichotomy" terminology. Alas, this false dichotomy can at times look very real! And the bridges build to cross the devide seem often quite threadbare constructions - misshapen results of tortured effords.
"God" is an elementary word, a childrens word, a word that will stay with us for Ever. It is at us to give it the right meaning, its right place. This word belongs neither to the Pope, nor the Taliban, but every you and me who values "their" (terrible) right to simply say "my god", when the occasion calls for it!!

[Gillianren]

(Disclaimer: I acknowledge that many Christians accept evolution--they just think it was God's decision for one particular bug to eat another or one bacteria to magically grow a flagella. Those sorts of people are definitely not Young-Earth Creationists.)

Not even necessarily that. (Not that I'm a Christian, of course.) Some do believe that God doesn't micromanage.

(I should ask my mother her opinion at some point. She's Catholic, so it would give me an interesting perspective on the subject.)

[satori]

Thank you, jamesabrown, for your personal testemony !
Here in Europa you will find a high degree of condescension about the ongoing conflict between the enlightend Darwinists and the "Biblicals" in the U.S. Fact is, that when you don't have a religous world view in the first place, you can take Evolution at what it is ( an extremely convincing scheme to put order to the whole bestiarium of species)....And Never Have Any Qualms Whatsoever !
What me angers some times is, that we also on the right side ( the evolutionist side) of this battel have a good many of very rightous(!) people, who are totaly blind for the cultural implications of their "gospel". Evolution is on the scientific plane a shining force for the good, that is: clarity and enlightenment !
On the socio-cultural plane Evolution is a destroyer !
The Bibel is an invention of humans for humans. It has served a purpose for millenia. It has served the purpose of education and civilisation. It served unification and legeslation. It was a force for good even for enlightenment. It proposes (albeit Imposes would be more correct) answers to questions which are near to the heart of us humans and to which science will Never Allow itself to give answers to. A hard core evolutionist for exampel would forbid(!!!) you to notice a Progression in evolution (undefinable, ad odds with the premises of probabilism). They would of course forbid you to address Man as the crown of Creation.... There is a general tendency, to impose the limitations of methodology which Evolution as a rigorous science has to cast upon itself to the wider field of cultural debate. This can not be denied!!!
So there remains a certain sympathy on my part for those who as I can discern such tendencies, that they try to carry the battel to the enemy as it were. Now perhaps am I overly fair to the politicaly organized evangelical right in America which may well have a hidden agenda. It is my wish so, to point clearly out, that Evolution as the Dominant Paradigm for All of Biologie carries a Moral Void in it (not bad) which can rightfuly be seen as a danger if spilled over in the cultural arena.
( now why am i so often arguing for "the other side"?)

[3rdvogon]

( now why am i so often arguing for "the other side"?)

For the simple reason that Science does not do Morals - those that try to use science as a basis for human morality pervert the scientific principle as a certain A Hitler and his associates tried to do.

Science will only explain how things work and how they came to be the way they are.

Science will in time explain in better detail how our complex brains work and therefore what often motivates us towards certain courses of action. It can explain that certain behavioural traits have their origins among our mammal ancestors and it can explain how those traits would have served to benefit those ancestors biological survival.

What Science cannot do though is attach moral values to those inherited traits. It can say why they are there and how they got there but not whether they are good or bad, or more importantly if they are good for an over-smart ape that tries to live in communities of several million doing a mundane job and paying its taxes.

For some time now our own species has messed about with the evolution of other species (domestic animals) while at the same time our technologies have enabled us to avoid many of the pressures of natural selection that all earlier species had to contend with. This means that whilst we may still be animals we are clearly Animals-Plus. We have the means to shape our own destiny for good or bad and whilst science may provide us the means on the one hand to understand the implications of our actions and on the other hand the tools to improve or worsen our future it cannot tell us what is right.

For example: Science gives us the means to understand Global Warming - The tools to do something about it are available to us but is Global Warming good or bad? Yes if the climate changes and sea levels rise people and animals will die. However such things have happened before in the history of our planet. There have been other times in the past when the world was largely free of ice so why should it not be so again. Does Science tell us what is best for the future of life on earth in this case, who knows maybe this planet is due for a change and we are just helping it along. Such decisions about what we should do next need to be viewed in a human moral context such as what sort of world should we leave for our Grandchildren. Now that Morality can be faith based or purely Humanistic either way the answers about what is right will not be found in Physics Chemistry or Biology.

[Dons]

By ANTHONY MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer Tue Feb 6, 11:18 PM ET
I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room — along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.

Don:

So this is the stupidity of the religious fundamentalist, their faith is more important than knowledge of the natural forces that surround us. This is truly the propaganda of the ignorant, if not some what insane.


How would you reason with a person like Bishop Boniface Adoyo? You don’t reason at all, you force the man to be compliant to the laws, and punish him at every turn when he breaks them.


If Boniface does any of the following: trespassing, intimidation, causing a public nuisance, exciting to riot, corruption of the youth, public disorder, disturbing the peace, vandalism, terrorist activity, public protest without a permit, obstruction of the normal flow of persons and commerce, libel, slander, crimes against property, crimes against person, every thing involved in tort and common law, obstruction of justice, and I’m just getting started.


in Western law, Boniface had better not ignore a court order, or a double whammy for him if he does.


Then you prosecute to the hilt, in full view of every one, and allow him a defense.


If Boniface’s protest activities, with implied threats, cause the museum’s insurance rates go up then suit the crap out of him personally, and the church for millions of dollars.


The museum has a right, by western law, to display their fossil bones, what ever, in peace and harmony, just as Boniface has a right to enjoy his religion in the same atmosphere. What would apply to Boniface would apply to the museum, no double standard.


Freedom of speech for the museum to endorse Evolution is the same for Boniface and his religion, a degree of tolerance is required, but if one line is crossed (statute or tort), drag his body into court, in chains if necessary, to face a judge.


If Boniface does not have the intellect for common decency, to comply of his own free will, then force him to comply.


The only way the human race will prosper is by the rule of law. You want technical advancements, go to the moon and beyond, what ever, the best that humans can do for one another; it will be by the rule of just and fair laws with teeth.



These religious fanatics will be contained, controlled, and civilized, even if every one of them has to go to jail.


Don

[Gillianren]

Evolution currently is one of a number of theories of current life's diversity. That number is one.

[satori]

Dons, you have the right stuff for a lawyer.......I am satisfied that a mighty ocean keeps me at a save distance from you (try(!) to take this as a compliment).
In a less lighter tone let me add; your bluster is an impressive demonstration of who holds truly the reigns in America!
Is there a judge who dares placing a monument to the ten comandments on the premisis of "his" court...slab him with federal law! Here in Germany would you find crosses hanging from the walls of court rooms.
so the picture is mixed

[Dons]

Dons, you have the right stuff for a lawyer.......I am satisfied that a mighty ocean keeps me at a save distance from you (try(!) to take this as a compliment).
In a less lighter tone let me add; your bluster is an impressive demonstration of who holds truly the reigns in America!
Is there a judge who dares placing a monument to the ten comandments on the premisis of "his" court...slab him with federal law! Here in Germany would you find crosses hanging from the walls of court rooms.
so the picture is mixed

I like Germany, it think it is a marvelous country, lovely people, Beautiful Ladies, most enjoyable children, RICH in human culture, a very long history of advancements, heavy in education, and what marvelous achievements, as a people, to humanities prosperity.


But yeah, religious symbols and ideology, would not be promoted at governments (tax money) expense. So I may have to change your constitution. No big deal, here in the USA we have changed and modified our constitution may times and still on going for interpretations and enforcement.


But in all honesty, you are doing a good job without me, and there are many ways to an end. Recombining East Germany to the German Nation has been NO easy task, you have been successful in all ways to date, and look how you did it, and hardly one shot fired. Excellent by any standard!


Here in the USA, there are all kinds of propaganda of high profile against the Germans and the French, and I do not believe any of it. I look at your laws with social order, and I am envious as a USA citizen. I do not see you folks running off to a religious war, or a war for oil, at all human life expendable, so do not get me started on politics that I detest for even a hair’s breath of reasoning.

Just ignore the USA’s ill, rood, and atrocious behavior (if that is possible), as we have ways to make corrections, and if possible, before anymore damage is done to life and limb. We have elections coming up, we have progress in our USA government to date, we have changed our USA congress, now we need to knock this religious president off his pedestal, 8 years of stupidity is all I can handle.


This might be off topic, but Bush and his “faith (god) based” access to government funds is crossing the lines of the “separation of church and state”, the establishment Clause of our Constitution, and state constitutions, across the board. I will not tolerate religions promoted in our tax funded public schools. So I say, take the SOB to court, in full public view. Make a lesson out of him for the world see and abhor.

I will worry about the details of evolution later.


Don

[3rdvogon]

I posted a similar thing to this on another forum not so long ago.

There are actually some advantages to having an official state religion (like we have in the UK) providing it is largely soft in its doctrine and generally weak and inoffensive.

By having an official church which does not wield much power or influence it allows the secular view of things to progress largely unopposed. At the same time simply by existing as the official religion in provides a useful excuse for politicians. If a politician were to be challenged by religious activists or fundamentalists on his/her religious/political position he/her can always say that he/her takes his queue from the official church. That pretty much "cuts the activists off at the knees". They are simply being told that they cannot claim the right to be the spiritual guardians of the nation because that job is already taken by the State sponsored church and providing that church has a policy of largely staying out of politics then balance is maintained.

It is a very British way of ensuring separation of power. Rather like having a monarch with no executive power but at the same time locking up the job of Head of State with the Crown.

In a similar way the Right to Life anti abortion movement has never really got off the ground over here. The government effectively decided that decisions about abortion should be left to the medical experts - it would basically sign into law their expert advice. This has meant that whole abortion debate has largely been taken out of the hands of the politicians & lawyers and delegated to the Medical Profession.

[Irishman]

Ken G said:
My opinion: the whole business goes away if scientists simply say "when you apply the approaches of science to the question of how we got here, evolution is what you get." I think this is what would make everyone somewhat happy and somewhat troubled, but it's also the truth, and it leaves no one with anything to attack effectively.

In general I agree. I've been arguing for some time the need to separate the arguments when dealing with "Creationism vs. Evolution". There's an inherent problem with the labeling.

The term "Creationism" is taken by some people to mean belief in a Creator (God). I think this is a mistaken and confusing use of the term, but it surfaces often enough when the topic arises to make it worth time to address. Heck, it's even in the Wikipedia page on "Creationism".

To me, there are 2 debates being waged in one set of terms: "God vs. No God" and "Unique Origins vs. Change Over Time". The scientific debate is the second one. But the couching of many arguments frame against the first. This is why religious moderates get frustrated and annoyed by Evolution. They are responding to the first rather than the second. Science debates need to not only focus on the second issue, but frame responses around the second and address the concerns over the first. I explicitly stress the two topics to deliberately separate them.

[Dons]

I posted a similar thing to this on another forum not so long ago.

There are actually some advantages to having an official state religion (like we have in the UK) providing it is largely soft in its doctrine and generally weak and inoffensive.

By having an official church which does not wield much power or influence it allows the secular view of things to progress largely unopposed. At the same time simply by existing as the official religion in provides a useful excuse for politicians. If a politician were to be challenged by religious activists or fundamentalists on his/her religious/political position he/her can always say that he/her takes his queue from the official church. That pretty much "cuts the activists off at the knees". They are simply being told that they cannot claim the right to be the spiritual guardians of the nation because that job is already taken by the State sponsored church and providing that church has a policy of largely staying out of politics then balance is maintained.

It is a very British way of ensuring separation of power. Rather like having a monarch with no executive power but at the same time locking up the job of Head of State with the Crown.

In a similar way the Right to Life anti abortion movement has never really got off the ground over here. The government effectively decided that decisions about abortion should be left to the medical experts - it would basically sign into law their expert advice. This has meant that whole abortion debate has largely been taken out of the hands of the politicians & lawyers and delegated to the Medical Profession.

Wow Vorgon:

I am learning stuff all the time, thank you for the post.

Here in the USA such an arrangement of “official church and state” would be the grounds for another civil war: not atheist against religions but Protestant v. Catholic v. Baptist v. every other religious cult. It would be another replay of the European 300 years of religious wars. I shutter in my boots to even think about an official state religion. God, that is scary stuff.

In our civil war, religions on both sides of the Mason Dixon line were highly influential, if not the direct cause, in one of the largest human slaughters of all time; of what the wounds have barley healed to this date. It is hard to believe that the North and the South were praying to the same god to massacre with vengeance the other, but it is fact. Human stupidity at its finest.

However, I am so happy that you folks have figured out how to make it work, and I can see your point.

As it is, the US House and Senate spend about $125,000 (annually) each on their own Chaplin (a religious soothsayer) to open and close Congress meetings with prayers, to justify their righteousness, counseling as to morality ( that is funny but a fact), but largely ignored by the general public.

Recently, Our 9th Circuit Federal Court has ruled that “under god” be stricken from the national pledge of allegiance (that cause national upheaval) and other court rulings have mandated that prayers of all kinds, and the pledge of allegiance, be stricken from public schools as there is NO WAY to satisfy what god to pray to without causing local protest and general rebellion. Beside we have the “Establishment Act” (USA Constitution) that forbids using tax moneys to promote religions, right or wrong.

Religions are free to operate as they like, being law abiding. From time to time, they pool their finances and make a political consortium to influence votes, but they stand in danger of loosing their “federal tax exemption” and “not for profit” exemptions and being reclassified as a “political party”. So they just get sneakier about it.

There have been several instances where churches have taped into large amounts of Federal funds, under the loop holes that Bush created, and used that money to print religious propaganda that was intended for local social services. I am not against social services, public or private, but not tax money for religious misinformation. These cases were litigated and the only penalty was a legal mandate of reshuffling expenditures by the church, and a hand slap. However, the cost of the church’s defense was in the hundreds of thousands. They are not likely to do that again, and others learn by example. So all is good, I guess.

To think that religion would influence politics and national policy, would spell war with insanity; oh, we have that with Bush, my point made.

We have many ways to control religions, but it is an on going daily effort, by far more legalities and court proceedings, than arguments of ID v. Evolution. It is from these many court cases that “religious cults of all kinds” loose their social influence, and given time, a few more generations, may just die out all together.

In the USA, in a very direct way, both criminal and civil, the courts mandate what kind (type) of god(s) a person will have, not “what” god(s) to have. Of you want a god, you will have a god(s) of peace and good will to humanity that is law abiding, by any name, book, or ritual OR by statute and common law, we will see you in court. This idea of the Middle East Muslim Jihad ** coming to this USA territory, will be met head on in the courts, and do not be saying “freedom of religion” either, you are free to have a religion as long as it does not hurt others in tort or break the law.

So this is my soapbox preaching and Oregon Statute thumping for the day. Thanks for bearing with me.


Don

[Dons]

In general I agree. I've been arguing for some time the need to separate the arguments when dealing with "Creationism vs. Evolution". There's an inherent problem with the labeling.

The term "Creationism" is taken by some people to mean belief in a Creator (God). I think this is a mistaken and confusing use of the term, but it surfaces often enough when the topic arises to make it worth time to address. Heck, it's even in the Wikipedia page on "Creationism".

To me, there are 2 debates being waged in one set of terms: "God vs. No God" and "Unique Origins vs. Change Over Time". The scientific debate is the second one. But the couching of many arguments frame against the first. This is why religious moderates get frustrated and annoyed by Evolution. They are responding to the first rather than the second. Science debates need to not only focus on the second issue, but frame responses around the second and address the concerns over the first. I explicitly stress the two topics to deliberately separate them.

Irishman:

That is the big problem in the debate of ID (creationism) v. Evolution, the agreement of terms and definitions, and what rout to go. The religious will not be nailed down and every time they are nailed down, they loose the argument.

They constantly flip and flop around, are bogged down in what “is” is, reject the scientific definitions of evolution, and use some Hitler philosophy of survival of the fittest, that is not science at all.

My experience has shown that they even flip flop around with a definition of their own god, as how would a person know one when they see it, you still cannot get an answer that makes any sense.

Try to explain to them the scientific method, and one eye goes up and the other goes down, but some how they manage to change a light bulb, and tie their shoes in the morning.

However, the religious are not the only ones that are sunk in denial, you should see the American Psychology organizations, that I have contended with many times. They have no more idea what is the Scientific Method than the man in the moon. You want to talk about claim making, they certainly get a big prize. They will claim anything to be science to support any stupid asumtion. Therefore, I am not just picking on the religious. These are highly educated people that never bat an eye to pervert good science, and I have their text to prove my point.

After a while you have to say, these guys are just *******s that know better and their only intent is to deceive as many as they can. I would venture that ¾ of those active in support of ID don’t even believe their own hog slop. Therefore it not like you are engaged in honest argument.


The only way to get their attention and to face facts is in court when they step out of line. I’m still astounded that it has taken 10’s of thousands of court hours just to clearly show that ID is a religious assumption, not even related to science, that only says “god did it”. However, we won in court where it counts, forced complyance, so two point for the progression of the human race.



Don

[Dons]

Evolution currently is one of a number of theories of current life's diversity. That number is one.

This is what I am talking about, are you using the valid scientific definition of a “theory” that is NOT any idea that pops into a person’s head or are you using the common definition?

As an example: The mechanical “theory” of an internal combustion engine, includes three basics of mechanics: the inclined plane, the lever, and the wheel.

Alternatively, are you saying: Mechanical “theory” means anything you want it to be, any idea that pops into your head?

You cannot make any claim you want to saying mechanical “theory” is pie in the sky and god did it, or “theory” means what ever you want it to be.

There is only one scientific definition of the word “theory”, and only one scientific (to date) explanation of bio-diversity on earth, and that is bio-evolution, (opposed to the evolution of the stars) and not some philosophical spin off or claim making.

So clarify, what definition of “theory” are you using? Saying, “god did it”, ID, creationism, aliens from Mars or the stars, Allah, MT. Olympia and Zeus, earth’s life diversity hatched on the back of a sea turtle, Spontaneous Generation (poof by magic), is not a using a scientific theory, that is unsupported claim making.



Don

[Gillianren]

This is what I am talking about, are you using the valid scientific definition of a “theory” that is NOT any idea that pops into a person’s head or are you using the common definition?

Yes. Hence my statement that evolution is the one valid theory.

[Dons]

Yes. Hence my statement that evolution is the one valid theory.

My sincere apologies, I misunderstood you. ID (creationism, bible beliefs) V. Evolution is a hot topic of mine. I have burnt out on it more than once. Actually, I am proud of myself for showing so much restraint at this time.


Don

[Professor Illwill]

Exactly, it is their method to the conclusion that is clearly nonscientific, and a debate about method actually wins two fights at once-- it keeps ID out of science class, and it also teaches what science is.

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I've noticed a trend. You continually maintain that the best strategy to defeat ID is to teach proper scientific methods and give the public a good education.

From what I've seen, it's far more effective to simply blanket the public with false information. The case I'm most familiar with is the attempt in Kansas to establish science education standards.

This place has about the most objective coverage I could readily find searching the internet:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...110801211.html

Halfway down the page is a link to the actual text of the standards. It's in pdf.
http://www3.ksde.org/outcomes/scstdworkingdoc892005.pdf

The standards call for just what you describe: solid education, particularly in scientific methodology. Nowhere do they call for the teaching of Creation Science or Intelligent Design.

But the press said they did. I would even challenge you to find any media coverage outside of CS/ID circles that does not claim the standards are intended to promote the teaching of CS/ID in public schools. I saw several articles and "letters to the editor" in local newspapers. I did not see one that attempted to be truthful.

The only language at all included in the standards which I can find that might disturb evolutionists is that where specific theories are dubious/doubtful/controversial (I forget the exact terminology), teachers are not to try to hide the problems.

Politically the standards passed at first, and then after elections they got rid of them. Big money poured into Kansas to prevent what I see you advocating. As of now it has been effective. Things may change in the future, but money and dishonesty appear to have been used very successfully.

The same is roughly true in other cases, but I'm less familiar with them.

You seem almost a turncoat, since the pro-evolution people hate what you're proposing. They want science to be taught from authority, and they want problems with "theories" to be covered up. That's what their money says, and people don't back up things with that kind of money unless they mean it.

Now I am a member of the CSA/MA, and I don't care to hide it. I'm not very active, but the folks I've met so far have been nothing at all like the terms I've seen here. For the record they are not liars.

I don't plan on engaging in evolution debates here, since this forum just isn't a good place for it. Anyone PM me if you'd like to discuss/debate elsewhere. There are plenty of athiest-hosted debate sites that love this stuff; you needn't venture onto unfriendly or even neutral turf.

Bottom line: Ken G, you'll make few friends in your own camp if you continue to advocate this ineffective strategy. Go with a proven winner: lies and money.

[Ken G]

From what I've seen, it's far more effective to simply blanket the public with false information. The case I'm most familiar with is the attempt in Kansas to establish science education standards.

What you may be overlooking is that there already were scientific education standards, why should they need to be "established"? The purpose was clear, was it not?

Big money poured into Kansas to prevent what I see you advocating. As of now it has been effective. Things may change in the future, but money and dishonesty appear to have been used very successfully.

I repeat my questions above. ID always tries to pretend there is a scientific controversy where there simply is none, I'm afraid this is just the fact. However, I do agree that sometimes people forget what science is for, and what a scientific conclusion means outside the objective realm of scientific inquiry (not a lot). They can educate that if they like, but not an evolution "scientific controversy", that's just bunk.

You seem almost a turncoat, since the pro-evolution people hate what you're proposing.

I'd say all sides need to look at their positions and inject a bit more "truth in advertising".

Bottom line: Ken G, you'll make few friends in your own camp if you continue to advocate this ineffective strategy. Go with a proven winner: lies and money.

I'm not about making friends, to tell you the truth, I would like to see intellectual honesty. But now you are the one using the term "lies", even after objecting to it being applied to the people you side with. Is this a step in the direction of intellectual honesty?

[PaleBlueDot]

I hold that things that are not true should never be taught in school. It is intellectually dishonest and patriotically abhorrent to teach creationism to impressionable young people. Doing so constitutes a crime against the truth, against our children, and against America's future.

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than a deceitful repackaging of creationism.

[Professor Illwill]

Perhaps I should be more clear. I do not object to the term "lie" being used, or even "liar" when it is accurate. I'm all about accurate terms.

I do not object to stories about known liars being told.

However some of these people are my friends. Not close - but nevertheless friends. I don't recall seeing a statement calling them liars. I did see that a casual reader might very easily get the impression from some posts here that all CS/IA people are liars. It was my duty to make it known that my friends are not liars.

I do not use such terms loosely. I hate false accusations. Now if you can find anything in those standards which says ID or CS is to be promoted in public schools, I will retract what I said. I know what the press said, and the vast majority of the search results you will get on Google or Ask Jeeves will contain that exact lie.

A lie is a lie. There may be polite terminology, but it is not efficient.

I don't claim for one minute that all ID/CS is on the up-and-up. I can find dishonest preachers on TV without too much trouble, and I don't doubt that may of them are trying to milk it. The same may be true of some authors. I have detected very, very little intentional deceit either in person or in writing within the ID/CS community; and none whatsoever in the CSA.

Now if you find it offensive to call a lie a lie, or call a liar a liar just say so. For your sake I'm willing to beat around the bush a little (very little), so long as I'm accurate.

[Professor Illwill]

What you may be overlooking is that there already were scientific education standards, why should they need to be "established"? The purpose was clear, was it not?

I repeat my questions above. ID always tries to pretend there is a scientific controversy where there simply is none, I'm afraid this is just the fact. However, I do agree that sometimes people forget what science is for, and what a scientific conclusion means outside the objective realm of scientific inquiry (not a lot). They can educate that if they like, but not an evolution "scientific controversy", that's just bunk.

Sorry. I focused in on the tail end & forgot the earlier parts of your post.

The common-sense way to find out the purpose of the standards would be to read them. I don't insist that you do, unless you're going to say they are somehow objectionable. If you say that, I'd request an example of objectionable text.

If you claim there are no controversies in evolution, I'd say you are at best ill-informed. Dinosaurs being warm blooded is an example. Some evolutionists say they were, and some say they weren't. Why should this be hidden?

I did think of another case of terminology which would probably be offensive to evolutionists. This is from memory, so it's not an exact quote at all. If a child questions what he's being taught "because Mommy and Daddy say otherwise", the child and his parents are not to be mocked, ridiculed, etc. as was done when I was in school (most ineffectively). I'm pretty sure that's a problem for some.

I'm still waiting for someone to call for the firing of professional scientists when it becomes known that they subscribe to ID/CS. "Put the economic screws to 'em. That'll shut 'em up." There's really no need to call for it, since it's common practice, but still - it's the thought that counts.

Overall, I wouldn't fret too much over strategy if I were you. But then I have reason to believe the majority of people will be deceived. Not something I'm happy about, but I know where things stand.

[PaleBlueDot]

I'm still waiting for someone to call for the firing of professional scientists when it becomes known that they subscribe to ID/CS. "Put the economic screws to 'em. That'll shut 'em up." There's really no need to call for it, since it's common practice, but still - it's the thought that counts.

If I were a school administrator, my policy would be "believe whatever you want, but keep your pseudo-science out of the classroom."

[Disinfo Agent]

It seems ironic that Professor Illwill should come here complaining about honesty. Didn't the school board that tried to promote ID in Kansas hide its ID agenda to the very last moment, until it had managed to make itself elected?

[Dons]

I'm still waiting for someone to call for the firing of professional scientists when it becomes known that they subscribe to ID/CS. "Put the economic screws to 'em. That'll shut 'em up." There's really no need to call for it, since it's common practice, but still - it's the thought that counts.

It is not that the science teachers subscribe to ID but what it is they teach in the science classroom. Believe what you will, but what are the results of your actions, that is what maters and that is what counts.

As to firing teachers that teach ID in the class, by what authority can the school administration do that? On what platform can the school administration stand on facing the Teachers Union(s)?

When the school administration shows a Supreme Court ruling (state and/or federal) that says religion will not be taught in public school, and ID is a religion (as stated clearly in the court rulings); on these grounds this teacher has consistently taught ID –so he/she is FIRED. On the grounds of the court(s) ruling, the teachers union(s) and other social forces backing the offending teacher, are “shut the hell up” period, there is no more argument. The teacher is fired.


The only authority that is of any value is in the courts, and the writs from the courts. Scientist do not have any authority to the school district, nor any other social authority, nor the Pope, nor the churches, and the best selling book on the New York Times list is also void of any authority. Nor does the NSF have any social authority to the school boards.

ID/CS has not won ONE single court case, not so much of one out of dozens+. If the local school board(s) step out of line the common person has plenty of legal precedence to drag the school board right into court.

How do you argue with a creationist? You don’t, tell them to go argue with the US Supreme Court.


Don

[Gillianren]

If you claim there are no controversies in evolution, I'd say you are at best ill-informed. Dinosaurs being warm blooded is an example. Some evolutionists say they were, and some say they weren't. Why should this be hidden?

There are controversies in evolution. The occurence of evolution, however, is not controversial in and of itself. It happens. There is no (valid) doubt. If you doubt it, you're not looking at the evidence.

However, it is a common tactic to say, "Oh, look! They don't agree on every little detail, so obviously, the whole theory is flawed!" In which case so's gravity.

[JohnD]

Dons,
Firing teachers who teach ID? That's as bad as ID itself.
No need to adopt the policies of the opponent - let fascism, in politics or science, have its say. It is a hollow philosophy.

Just never, ever, let it go unchallenged.
John

[PaleBlueDot]

There are controversies in evolution. The occurence of evolution, however, is not controversial in and of itself. It happens. There is no (valid) doubt. If you doubt it, you're not looking at the evidence.

However, it is a common tactic to say, "Oh, look! They don't agree on every little detail, so obviously, the whole theory is flawed!" In which case so's gravity.

Indeed. There is no more legitimate scientific criticism of evolution than there is of mitosis or photosynthesis.

[Dons]

Dons,
Firing teachers who teach ID? That's as bad as ID itself.
No need to adopt the policies of the opponent - let fascism, in politics or science, have its say. It is a hollow philosophy.

Just never, ever, let it go unchallenged.
John

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, that is the law, that is what happens in real life, a teacher will get fired for teaching ID or any other religion in public schools.

The courts have ruled that science class is for science, not religions. So all these ID supporters are just hollow, and certainly have NO authority to influence any school board. They can try, and they will be met at every turn in court, where it counts.

In addition, the state’s school board, that have to operate within the structure of State/Federal Constitutions, have a mandate by State Regulations that solid science, Evolution, is taught in private religious schools OR that school will loose its state license to operate.

Briefly, the cases covered in the courts regarding the ID v. Evolution debate was a matter of the USA constitution of separation of church and state. The court arguments were about defining religion, defining ID, defining creationism, defining scientific theory, hypothesis, experimentation, and more, and comparing those definitions against the “Establishment Clause” of the US Constitution and State constitutions. ID was ruled as a religion.

Home schooling is not just for the religious as I know of several atheist families that are home schooling their children for many reasons. In Oregon, home schooling teachers MUST teach valid science so the student can pass a "public accepted" competency test (knowing Evolution) or the home school is closed by revocation of their licenses. The same goes for any religious family involved in home schooling.


ID/Creationism lost repeatedly as being defined as a “religion”, ID is a religious doctrine, and in particular the “Christian religion”.


You can review many of these court cases at talkorigine.com, and then cross reference to “your state” school board's policy and regulations found by doing a Google search. Another reference is “findlaw.com” poke around it is easy.

These Christian supporters of ID and creationism repeatedly limped out of the courtroom with their tail between their legs suffering huge fines and attorney cost, their entire cause turned to dust in the wind, VOID of any social acceptance as a science, by the mandate of the courts.

It is NOT a mater of liking it; it is a mater of enforced law with teeth.

Don

[PaleBlueDot]

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, that is the law, that is what happens in real life, a teacher will get fired for teaching ID or any other religion in public schools.

That is because teaching false information does a massive disservice to everyone involved.

[Jim]

Halfway down the page is a link to the actual text of the standards. It's in pdf.
http://www3.ksde.org/outcomes/scstdworkingdoc892005.pdf

The standards call for just what you describe: solid education, particularly in scientific methodology. Nowhere do they call for the teaching of Creation Science or Intelligent Design.

But the press said they did. ...

The only language at all included in the standards which I can find that might disturb evolutionists is that where specific theories are dubious/doubtful/controversial (I forget the exact terminology), teachers are not to try to hide the problems.

The exact wording is:
Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.

These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”

The critical sections - the ones on which ID proponents pinned their arguments in favor of teaching ID - are "to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory" and "to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic ... by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence."

These words allow - actually, require the teaching of ID if it can be presented as a vaild and competing scientific theory to evolution. It is these words that sparked the comments in the press that the Kansas State School Board was opening the schoolhouse doors to creationism masquerading as ID.

Perhaps the press wasn't being untruthful, but you were misunderstanding their meaning?

(BTW, the construction of that second paragraph looks very ungrammatical to me. Gillian? Can you have "an objective of to help?" And then list three of them?)

[Irishman]

3rdvogon said:
There are actually some advantages to having an official state religion (like we have in the UK) providing it is largely soft in its doctrine and generally weak and inoffensive.

That's a mighty big provision. I recall it took several centuries of bloodshed and oppression before it got to the point of being so currently laid back. And there really is nothing keeping it from reasserting its power, other than the will of the people not accepting it.

By having an official church which does not wield much power or influence it allows the secular view of things to progress largely unopposed.

How is that better than not having an official church in allowing secular view to progress unopposed? If the nation is secular, then the secular view should remain unopposed.

At the same time simply by existing as the official religion in provides a useful excuse for politicians. If a politician were to be challenged by religious activists or fundamentalists on his/her religious/political position he/her can always say that he/her takes his queue from the official church. That pretty much "cuts the activists off at the knees". They are simply being told that they cannot claim the right to be the spiritual guardians of the nation because that job is already taken by the State sponsored church and providing that church has a policy of largely staying out of politics then balance is maintained.

That's a poor strategy, because it concedes a point that many people do not accept, that the root of morality comes from religions and gods. If the majority of the people are secular, they don't need the teachings of the "official church" to make them comfortable dismissing the views of the fundamentalists.

In a similar way the Right to Life anti abortion movement has never really got off the ground over here. The government effectively decided that decisions about abortion should be left to the medical experts - it would basically sign into law their expert advice. This has meant that whole abortion debate has largely been taken out of the hands of the politicians & lawyers and delegated to the Medical Profession.

Note that that occurred by the willing cooperation of the politicians themselves ceding the decision making to the medical establishment. That is a philosophy that does not depend on an official church. Rather, public sentiment.

Professor Illwill said:
I don't claim for one minute that all ID/CS is on the up-and-up. I can find dishonest preachers on TV without too much trouble, and I don't doubt that may of them are trying to milk it. The same may be true of some authors. I have detected very, very little intentional deceit either in person or in writing within the ID/CS community; and none whatsoever in the CSA.

I don't know who you know, and I can't speak about all members of the CSA (Creation Science Association?). I'm sure not all Creationists are intentionally deceitful. But it is a documented fact that prominent figures of the CS movement deliberately misrepresent claims of mainstream scientists to support their position in direct opposition of the intent and meaning of the scientist. It goes so far as to quote rhetorical remarks used to set the stage for an explanation (such as Darwin mentioning the "design" of the eye) and quoting it as if the scientist agreed with the statement because he said it. It is very likely these quotes propogate within the CS community without being verified/countered, and are likely repeated. I would encourage you to be on the lookout for such.

It is also a clear fact that ID proponents are less that overt with their true aims. Their own literature has surfaced from less public forums where they admitted their true aims and purposes, things they don't say in public now. It is also on record where the Judge in the Kitzmiller case commented in his judgment about the dishonesty of the board members in their testimony about what they knew and when they knew it.

These situations are not rare. While they do not characterize all Creationists, they certainly occur frequently enough to make people cautious and perhaps irritated.

If you claim there are no controversies in evolution, I'd say you are at best ill-informed. Dinosaurs being warm blooded is an example. Some evolutionists say they were, and some say they weren't. Why should this be hidden?

I very seriously doubt you will find a single Evolution supporter who would want that hidden. Actual scientific controversies, open points of debate, and the like are a part of the process of science, and I don't know anyone opposed to showing that. What Evolution supporters object to is false controversies promoted as if they are valid - things like Irreducible Complexity, the Great Flood explanation for the Grand Canyon, the claim that macroevolution is impossible, Evolution cannot explain the development of complex organs like the eye, etc. Those are the things that get promoted as "controversies within Evolution", and those are the things that we don't want to see incorporated in school curricula.