Bush endorses Intelligent Design in the Classroom

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
So basically what we have learned from this thread is:

Fact: Bush wants ID taught in schools because thats one step closer to Christianity in schools.

Fact: The Libs refuse to even consider teaching ID anywhere in school (even in another class aside from a science class) because Bush wants it.

I've been watching and fighting ID creationism for years. Bush's support is a major PR coup for ID creationists, but it's not the reason we oppose it. We includes scientists from all parties, so why don't you stop trying to make this a partisan issue?

p.s.: I have no problem with teaching ID in a political science class, as an example of how to run a deceptive campaign to push a political agenda.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Deudalus
So basically what we have learned from this thread is:

Fact: Bush wants ID taught in schools because thats one step closer to Christianity in schools.

Fact: The Libs refuse to even consider teaching ID anywhere in school (even in another class aside from a science class) because Bush wants it.

I've been watching and fighting ID creationism for years. Bush's support is a major PR coup for ID creationists, but it's not the reason we oppose it. We includes scientists from all parties, so why don't you stop trying to make this a partisan issue?

p.s.: I have no problem with teaching ID in a political science class, as an example of how to run a deceptive campaign to push a political agenda.

ID should only be taught in religion classes. Don't know if you have it but it's a class where you learn about the different religions of the world.
 

jimkyser

Senior member
Nov 13, 2004
547
0
0
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Deudalus
So basically what we have learned from this thread is:

Fact: Bush wants ID taught in schools because thats one step closer to Christianity in schools.

Fact: The Libs refuse to even consider teaching ID anywhere in school (even in another class aside from a science class) because Bush wants it.

I've been watching and fighting ID creationism for years. Bush's support is a major PR coup for ID creationists, but it's not the reason we oppose it. We includes scientists from all parties, so why don't you stop trying to make this a partisan issue?

p.s.: I have no problem with teaching ID in a political science class, as an example of how to run a deceptive campaign to push a political agenda.

ID should only be taught in religion classes. Don't know if you have it but it's a class where you learn about the different religions of the world.

It would also be appropriate for a class in Philosophy.
 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Intelligent design - Someone with a brain made something or someone
Accidental Design - Darwinism -- Everthything and everybody is an accidental freak of nature

Which makes more sense?

An accidental Design is a mutation or a cancer.

This isn't probablity or a guessing game. This is science.

People who don't know the fundamentals of science shouldn't determine what is classified as science. Show me some evidence for ID piasabird. I'd love it. Then, I can show you some evidence of evolution. Though the two aren't conflicting theories, one is science while the other is faith based (non-scientific in the last).

Please, dazzle me with an argument for ID other than, "we just don't know that it isn't ID" or that "it's unlikely that everything happened through random processes, so there must be a higher power."

I believe in a higher power, but that has nothing to do with science!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Evolution is intelligent design because it operates on an intelligent principle, namely that of all the slowly drifting genetic changes that occur, under certain conditions and population sizes, those that are adaptive accrue.
 

imported_ArtVandalay

Senior member
Jul 19, 2005
694
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Intelligent design - Someone with a brain made something or someone
Accidental Design - Darwinism -- Everthything and everybody is an accidental freak of nature

Which makes more sense?

Evolution.

Mutations are a part of how evolution works, not accidents. Calling it accidental implies a guiding hand, and belies your unwillingness to discuss this in favor of arguing.

I can't believe this has even become a real issue, I guess nothing's too ass-backwards under King Dubya. By the time he leaves office compulsory churchgoing may well be an issue. I wish I was kidding.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ArtVandalay
Originally posted by: piasabird
Intelligent design - Someone with a brain made something or someone
Accidental Design - Darwinism -- Everthything and everybody is an accidental freak of nature

Which makes more sense?

Evolution.

Mutations are a part of how evolution works, not accidents. Calling it accidental implies a guiding hand, and belies your unwillingness to discuss this in favor of arguing.

I can't believe this has even become a real issue, I guess nothing's too ass-backwards under King Dubya. By the time he leaves office compulsory churchgoing may well be an issue. I wish I was kidding.

It's become an issue because people like piasabird have very little understanding of the scientific issue at all. Forget for a second that a theory involving supernatural, unexplainable, unobservable powers somehow "makes more sense" in a scientific world, the debate is all wrong. Science is about looking at the data and drawing a reasonable conclusion based on other knowledge. It doesn't matter what "makes more sense", it matters what can be proven and demonstrated and what conclusions are scientifically valid. ID is out since supporters started with the conclusion. It simply isn't science.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Evolution isn't random.
If evolution is not random, then it must be predetermined...if that is the case, what scientific explanation defines the pattern, purpose or objective of evolution...similarly, if evolution is not random, then we should be able to predict evolutionary stages with a fairly high degree of certainty.

Survival of a species is one of the driving forces for evolution...species adapt to the environment in which they live, or die...a study of numerous species has demonstrated that many evolved in a manner that was not condusive to their survival...evolution has created some fairly bizarre specimens.

Yet the natural balance between the species on this planet, and evolution itself, is seemingly guided by instinct and an invisible survival mechanism embedded across species.
 

imported_ArtVandalay

Senior member
Jul 19, 2005
694
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Evolution isn't random.
what scientific explanation defines the pattern, purpose or objective of evolution
Bzzt. Purpose? Objective? Without a guiding hand (God) in the equation why does evolution require either? Regardless, you're taking cquark out of context; his comment was in reply to someone making the watchmaker analogy; evolution isn't random in that throwing organic material into a bag and shaking it wouldn't produce a complex living organism.

...similarly, if evolution is not random, then we should be able to predict evolutionary stages with a fairly high degree of certainty.
many [species] evolved in a manner that was not condusive to their survival...evolution has created some fairly bizarre specimens.
So you mean to say there are things we don't know yet? :p All which we don't know needn't be attributed to God.

Yet the natural balance between the species on this planet, and evolution itself, is seemingly guided by instinct and an invisible survival mechanism embedded across species.
Balance is driven by evolution. Adapt or die. Many have gone down each path. A strong survival instinct is obviously a great evolutionary adaptation for *drumroll* survival, and so of course it will be seen commonly in nature.

Don't be so egotistical as to assume anything you don't personally understand must be beyond human comprehension and attributable to God.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Evolution isn't random.
If evolution is not random, then it must be predetermined...if that is the case, what scientific explanation defines the pattern, purpose or objective of evolution...similarly, if evolution is not random, then we should be able to predict evolutionary stages with a fairly high degree of certainty.

Another poster has pointed out how there is no purpose or objective, but you also need to look deeper into science. The equations that describe nature are typically too difficult to solve for most complex systems. No one can solve even the three body problem precisely. We have to resort to numerical simulations to solve many body problems until we start dealing with 10^20 or more particles, at which point the statistics become good enough that we can use statistical mechanics to give reasonably precise answers without numerical methods again.

Edited to add: You may find books like Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo useful for answering your questions about the possibilities of evolution. It discusses which parts of the genome can change rapidly and what effects they have on the resulting organisms.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
If I could barrow your brain for a second Cquark ;)

You're quote got a rather interesting response...

yes, biology has done quite a bit, but is any of it motivated by evolution? all of our medical advances, do they rely on evolution to work? (let's see, pasteurization, vaccination, drug and cancer therapies... which ones require evolution to work?) you hear about doctors in the medical field, giving lectures--if they mention evolution, it's like an afterthought, and to connect your ideas to it is extra work that perhaps is going in the wrong direction.

yeah, evolution has done quite a bit: it's given a load of subject/theme/storylines for fiction. what technologies has it produced, tabs? what experiments has it designed that biology is so much more enhanced (if you can give any examples that aren't experiments that try to prove evolution as true [which, albeit, is the general reason for theory experimentation], i think you should get extra points)? what, we have the idea that things mutate and by natural selection the strong survive. for medical technology: we decide that humans should be able to fight off diseases and infections by themselves, so as to let evolution work it's way out. we have pioneered the advent of nanotechnology droids to kill off any bacteria that may suddenly become multicellular organisms (via evolution).

not that i would care to have intelligent design set up as the full model. s/he's right--what has intelligent design done? but what has evolution done? the human genome project! i admit it's a good start at looking at mutations within our species, but did we have to have evolution to see that things and people get screwed up with diseases? if we would honestly look at mutations by themselves without evolution in the way, would we really see them as the mechanism for evolution?

if we started by realizing how we start with something, and how we are not ever objective, then it would be a good chance to look at what we are starting with. evolutionists want to explain the universe by naturalistic causes. the universe had a beginning, which means it had a cause. does a universe cause itself? can nature cause nature? i don't think that's possible.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Very Old Eggs Reveal A Fast, Changing Path Through Evolution

Copyright (c) 2005, Dow Jones & Company Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
BIOLOGISTS STUDYING how species change over the eons have always been hampered by the little problem of previous generations of a species being, well, dead. Sure, you can infer something about what a creature was like from fossils, but fossils generally fail to preserve much except bone. As a result, some of an animal's most interesting features vanish into the dust of time.

But these days, not even death is forever. A few years ago, biologist W. Charles Kerfoot was examining "cores" -- basically, muck deposited decades earlier -- in a Michigan lake. Lo and behold, he and his colleagues discovered eggs, and not just any eggs. They had been laid long ago by tiny creatures (mostly insects and crustaceans) that no longer lived in the lake. Even better, there was still life in the eggs. Under the right conditions, they would hatch.

"We knew right away that we were founding a whole new field," says Prof. Kerfoot of Michigan Technological University, Houghton. "I call it 'resurrection ecology.' " By hatching the eggs one muddy layer at a time, he realized, he could compare one generation with another to investigate evolutionary change.

It has always struck me as odd that evolutionary biology is caricatured by opponents as being static, a tower of unchanging (and unchangeable) dogma dating from Darwin. In fact, it is full of competing ideas, new discoveries and bickering scientists.

IN HIS RESURRECTION work, Prof. Kerfoot focuses on eggs of a tiny water flea, Daphnia retrocurva, from Portage Lake. He sieves them out of the deep muck, pops them into an incubator, and is a proud papa a few days later. "We've resurrected eggs from 300 years ago," he says. "That's 3,000 generations, equivalent to 120,000 years of evolution for humans."

And evolve is just what the little guys did. Daphnia share Portage Lake with creatures great and small, including predators, such as the shrimplike Leptodora. Prof. Kerfoot wondered whether the daphnia were doing something that biologists had hypothesized, but had struggled to prove -- namely, that the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" was describing evolution when she told Alice, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

In evolutionary biology, the Red Queen Hypothesis means predators and prey must evolve like heck just to keep from falling behind (and to remain able to hunt or elude capture).

Sure enough, daphnia eggs taken from muck with a high population of predators hatched into veritable warriors: They had long spikes on their tails and an impressive helmet, the better to make themselves too prickly to eat. "But as predators became less abundant, spine length and helmets became smaller," says Prof. Kerfoot. "Evidence for the Red Queen is very strong here. It looks like these populations really are changing just to stay in place."

He isn't the only scientist tinkering with classic Darwinism. The reigning theory of the molecular basis of evolution is that whether a mutation takes hold depends solely on natural selection: beneficial mutations last, detrimental ones disappear. But something else may be at work.

IF A SLEW of mutations show up at once, more of them endure, scientists led by Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago report in the July issue of Trends in Genetics. In my world, that's like an editor flooding you with dozens of suggestions for changes in your column. You're unable to fend them off, so more survive than if the requests come one-by-one over time.

Thousands of scientific papers presume that the fraction of retained mutations depends solely on how beneficial they are. "This theory has been the workhorse of molecular evolution," says Prof. Lahn. His discovery that a gene accepts more mutations when many hit at once is counterintuitive and controversial; a handful of journals actually rejected his paper. But if he is right, the molecular underpinning of evolutionary biology is itself in need of mutation.

Another pillar of evolution is that natural selection sculpts species toward some ideal fitness. In fact, what's "fit" is a matter of opinion. Consider the males of a little reptile called the side- blotched lizard, which come in three kinds. Orange-throated giants beat up on their diminutive blue-throated rivals, which in turn lord it over tiny yellow-throated guys. You'd think the yellows would eventually die out.

But natural selection is more forgiving than that. The yellows are so beneath the contempt of the oranges that they are able to steal assignations with females attracted to the oranges' territory. As a result, the yellows reproduce and survive.

Just as the game rock-paper-scissors has no single winning strategy -- it depends what your opponents choose -- so in lizard-dom there is more than one route to evolutionary fitness.

Critics contend that evolutionary biology is a haughty club that forces members "to circle the wagons against any and all would-be challengers, and to achieve consensus on the most contentious issues," Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptics Society, has written. "This conclusion is so wrong that it cannot have been made by anyone who has ever attended a scientific conference," or dipped so much as a toe into the roiling waters of evolutionary research.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: Tab
If I could barrow your brain for a second Cquark ;)

You're quote got a rather interesting response...

yes, biology has done quite a bit, but is any of it motivated by evolution? all of our medical advances, do they rely on evolution to work? (let's see, pasteurization, vaccination, drug and cancer therapies... which ones require evolution to work?) you hear about doctors in the medical field, giving lectures--if they mention evolution, it's like an afterthought, and to connect your ideas to it is extra work that perhaps is going in the wrong direction.

yeah, evolution has done quite a bit: it's given a load of subject/theme/storylines for fiction. what technologies has it produced, tabs? what experiments has it designed that biology is so much more enhanced (if you can give any examples that aren't experiments that try to prove evolution as true [which, albeit, is the general reason for theory experimentation], i think you should get extra points)? what, we have the idea that things mutate and by natural selection the strong survive. for medical technology: we decide that humans should be able to fight off diseases and infections by themselves, so as to let evolution work it's way out. we have pioneered the advent of nanotechnology droids to kill off any bacteria that may suddenly become multicellular organisms (via evolution).

not that i would care to have intelligent design set up as the full model. s/he's right--what has intelligent design done? but what has evolution done? the human genome project! i admit it's a good start at looking at mutations within our species, but did we have to have evolution to see that things and people get screwed up with diseases? if we would honestly look at mutations by themselves without evolution in the way, would we really see them as the mechanism for evolution?

if we started by realizing how we start with something, and how we are not ever objective, then it would be a good chance to look at what we are starting with. evolutionists want to explain the universe by naturalistic causes. the universe had a beginning, which means it had a cause. does a universe cause itself? can nature cause nature? i don't think that's possible.

Edited to add: Argh! Anandtech kept the quote and ate my reply.

Let me quickly summarize my original post. I think the area of evolutionary development (see Endless Forms above) is an exciting area of new applications of evolution. See http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/evolution_of_hormone_signaling/ for one example.

It's worth remembering that common descent is a part of evolution and is the justification for using animal studies to learn about human medicine. There's a good summary of applications of evolution at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html too.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
By putting 'intelligent design' on a par with evolutionary theory, President Bush goes further than any president has since Ronald Reagan advocated teaching creationism

The president has gone farther in questioning the widely-taught theories of evolution and natural selection than any president since Ronald Reagan, who advocated teaching creationism in public schools alongside evolution.

?Intelligent design? is not pure creationism. Its proponents tend not to believe, for instance, the Biblical claim that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old.

But they do suggest that the complex array of species on Earth could not have evolved on the basis of natural selection, and instead suggest the it reflects the hand of a hidden designer, most likely God ? although some have suggested maybe aliens are a possibility.

Either way, they've found a powerful champion in the President of the United States who has gone beyond advocating local control to say that school children "ought to be exposed" to a theory that critics describe as being tantamount to religion.
=====================================================
If they actually say could be GOD or Aliens in the class I might be OK with it.
 

EyeMNathan

Banned
Feb 15, 2004
1,078
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
By putting 'intelligent design' on a par with evolutionary theory, President Bush goes further than any president has since Ronald Reagan advocated teaching creationism

The president has gone farther in questioning the widely-taught theories of evolution and natural selection than any president since Ronald Reagan, who advocated teaching creationism in public schools alongside evolution.

?Intelligent design? is not pure creationism. Its proponents tend not to believe, for instance, the Biblical claim that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old.

But they do suggest that the complex array of species on Earth could not have evolved on the basis of natural selection, and instead suggest the it reflects the hand of a hidden designer, most likely God ? although some have suggested maybe aliens are a possibility.

Either way, they've found a powerful champion in the President of the United States who has gone beyond advocating local control to say that school children "ought to be exposed" to a theory that critics describe as being tantamount to religion.
=====================================================
If they actually say could be GOD or Aliens in the class I might be OK with it.

I'm all for teaching "intelligent design" in schools. In an optional class that covers a bunch of religions and their views about creation.

Keep it out of "science" class as it is isn't science and doesn't have enough support in fact to even be called a "theory".
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
nothing intelligent about intelligent design:p it fails by its own logic. god would require a creator:p

and god... thanks for aids. really... and cancer. children with cancer. thats just swell.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: cquark
p.s.: I have no problem with teaching ID in a political science class, as an example of how to run a deceptive campaign to push a political agenda.

ID should only be taught in religion classes. Don't know if you have it but it's a class where you learn about the different religions of the world.

While creationism in general is a religious idea, ID in particular is a public relations image created for political-religious reasons.

Paul Krugman wrote a good op-ed in the NYT on this topic yesterday. From
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html?oref=login

Design for Confusion

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 5, 2005

I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.

You might have thought that a strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results could work only in soft fields like economics. But it turns out that the strategy works equally well when deployed against the hard sciences.

The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

There are several reasons why fake research is so effective. One is that nonscientists sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between research and advocacy - if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?

Even when reporters do know the difference, the conventions of he-said-she-said journalism get in the way of conveying that knowledge to readers. I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close.


Finally, the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment. Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us.

Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.

But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
There is no testable scientific answer for how life began, so leave THAT part out of the classroom.

obviously you don't read enough science journals, to understand that his has been studied over and over again,

a combination of statistics and organic chemistry can explain the evolution of pre-biotic life, go read a book, or some journals, there are literally tons of papers on this subject

do you have any idea how easy it is for spontaneous formation of vitaminB12, under early earth conditions? (and yes it is a complex molecule used in molecular rearrangements)


***end rant by a biochemist
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
The origin of our universe, and the matter that created it...while evolution has a scientific basis, the catalyst that started it all, to include that which created life in the first place, is beyond scientific reach.

no its not, its called astophysics and high energy physics, both of which are underfunded in the country
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
Originally posted by: cquark

Of course, we know what the debate is about. It's not about the scientific evidence, because the answer there is the result of tens of thousands of researchers pursuing thousands of lines of evidence that all lead to the same answer: evolution. The debate is about a continual political campaign by Christian fundamentalists attempting to get their dogma taught as truth.

Unfortunately, this fundamentalist campaign has been largely successful, as 20% of K-12 biology teachers teach creationism and nearly 40% of K-12 biology teachers don't teach evolution in their classroom.

It IS about scientific evidence. I'm not sure if you realize this, but evolution has so many holes in it that if it was a fabric of some sort it wouldn't even hang together. Look at the world, all the intricate details of it, how it all works together, the beauty of it all - I can't see how you can look at it all and say "Oh, it is all a random happening of chance, nobody designed it" when there is absolutely NO WAY that it could have just "happened." Randomly throw parts of something on the floor. No matter how many times you do that, it will not fall together perfectly or even come close. Same with the universe, only on a much larger scale. It had to be put together intelligently, and by some intelligent Being who is God. Chance is not a force to do such things anyway.

Evolution is not science or a truth, it is a theory and should be taught that way - a theory that has holes in it. Students who are taught evolution should be aware of the holes. I find it pretty bad when evolutionists have to make their own "evidence" to try to support their theories (as was the case with the one so-called ancestor of man that was made up of a human skull and pig teeth filed to fit).