Bush endorses Intelligent Design in the Classroom

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

When it comes down to it, ID levels the playing field for laymen. It's an increasingly complex world, and those without a desire or the ability to read & learn don't want to feel stupid or left behind. ID allows them to feel smarter than those "hoighty-toighty" scientists (and diploma owners) and their "wrong" theories.

Quite an illogical argument coming from someone dismissing those who believe in intelligent design as "stupid." Quite a few educated people believe in a higher being, although education is hardly a measure of intelligence.

We're talking about ID, not belief in a higher being. I believe in a higher being and think the idea of ID is laughable. Simply put, if you want it to have any credibility, you'll have to come up with something better than 'what we can't understand must be attributable to God'. Religion has beeing doing that for far too long and been proven wrong far too many times in that regard.

I didn't call all who believe in ID "stupid", as you claim. I commented on one aspect (the biggest, imo) of its appeal.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Hey Starbuck, how about addressing the point that ID isn't science! Edit: In case you missed what i said before, here it is again:

You must have missed my previous post where I clarify that I believe intelligent design is appropriate for say a philosophical forum, but not a scientific one...scroll up to about halfway on page 5.

We're talking about ID, not belief in a higher being. I believe in a higher being and think the idea of ID is laughable. Simply put, if you want it to have any credibility, you'll have to come up with something better than 'what we can't understand must be attributable to God'. Religion has beeing doing that for far too long and been proven wrong far too many times in that regard.

But the concept of intelligent design attributes the creation and existance of life to a higher being, although not necessarily the God(s) of any one particular religion.

How is "what we can't understand must be attributable to God" any different then "what we can't understand can be quantified by science." You seem to be basing your argument on Creationism as defined in Christian terms by the Bible. Yes, science has managed to contradict or otherwise discredit much of what is in the Bible, yet even science has failed to provide answers to many of the questions that the Bible, and other religious documents, attempt to answer in the first place.

There are many mysteries in our universe that science cannot explain...sure there are theories, and perhaps one day humanity will be able to test those theories...until that time, the scientific and divine explanations for the origins of the universe, and life as we know it, are equally leaps of faith.

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
But the concept of intelligent design attributes the creation and existance of life to a higher being, although not necessarily the God(s) of any one particular religion.

No, the concept of ID is a way of pushing christianity into schools, watered down just enough to slide by under Dubya's rule.

How is "what we can't understand must be attributable to God" any different then "what we can't understand can be quantified by science."

Science's method and track record is the difference.

You seem to be basing your argument on Creationism as defined in Christian terms by the Bible.

What else would I base it on? While I do believe, and think the bible is a good guide in many respects to live one's life by, I don't fool myself as to its origins. Even if it were written by God himself, it's been changed and translated so much over the centuries by man so as to give it little credence where it attempts to explain the unknown. These are obviously Man's additions to it.

There are many mysteries in our universe that science cannot explain...sure there are theories, and perhaps one day humanity will be able to test those theories...until that time, the scientific and divine explanations for the origins of the universe, and life as we know it, are equally leaps of faith.

I can't believe you're trying to equate things laymen have guessed at with science. Science doesn't guess at the unknown and take that as gospel, it guesses and then experiments to see whether it was right or not.

If we all took the "it must be God, so we can't do anything or understand it" route to our relationship with the unknown, we'd be living in caves, in fear of thunder & lightning :roll:

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Hey Starbuck, how about addressing the point that ID isn't science! Edit: In case you missed what i said before, here it is again:

You must have missed my previous post where I clarify that I believe intelligent design is appropriate for say a philosophical forum, but not a scientific one...scroll up to about halfway on page 5.

We're talking about ID, not belief in a higher being. I believe in a higher being and think the idea of ID is laughable. Simply put, if you want it to have any credibility, you'll have to come up with something better than 'what we can't understand must be attributable to God'. Religion has beeing doing that for far too long and been proven wrong far too many times in that regard.

But the concept of intelligent design attributes the creation and existance of life to a higher being, although not necessarily the God(s) of any one particular religion.

How is "what we can't understand must be attributable to God" any different then "what we can't understand can be quantified by science." You seem to be basing your argument on Creationism as defined in Christian terms by the Bible. Yes, science has managed to contradict or otherwise discredit much of what is in the Bible, yet even science has failed to provide answers to many of the questions that the Bible, and other religious documents, attempt to answer in the first place.

There are many mysteries in our universe that science cannot explain...sure there are theories, and perhaps one day humanity will be able to test those theories...until that time, the scientific and divine explanations for the origins of the universe, and life as we know it, are equally leaps of faith.

You say that ID is not appropriate for a scientific class, but you're trying to equate it with scientific theory?

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, the concept of ID is a way of pushing christianity into schools, watered down just enough to slide by under Dubya's rule.

There is no doubt that the religious right, and Bush, is using the concept of intelligent design as a Trojan Horse for sneaking creationism into the classroom...despite the intentions of such a push, it does not mean that discussions revolving around intelligent design cannot find a place in the classroom.

Science's method and track record is the difference.

Science has also become quite dogmatic and segmented, and not all scientists agree on any number of discoveries...scientists debate and support theories with as much emotional attachment as the religious in many cases...while the scientific method may be rational and deliberate, it does not necessarily prevent the introduction of a human element.

What else would I base it on? While I do believe, and think the bible is a good guide in many respects to live one's life by, I don't fool myself as to its origins. Even if it were written by God himself, it's been changed and translated so much over the centuries by man so as to give it little credence where it attempts to explain the unknown. These are obviously Man's additions to it.

Obviously, but humanity believed in the divine long before the Bible was written, or before the spread of Christianity for that matter...humanity has transformed and corrupted the concept of spirituality with the human construct of religion...but despite any misgivings or skepticism we may hold towards religion, it does not mean that humanity should lose touch with the spiritual simply because the divine cannot be measured scientifically.

Science doesn't guess at the unknown and take that as gospel, it guesses and then experiments to see whether it was right or not.

As I stated earlier, there have been many passionate scientific debates around scientific theories, particularly those pertaining to the creation of our universe.

You say that ID is not appropriate for a scientific class, but you're trying to equate it with scientific theory?

Read my post again...scientific theory can explain many things...the evolutionary development of various species on this planet...how the Sun factors into the preservation of life on this planet...predicting weather patterns...genetic engineering...the limit of science is that it can only explain that which it can tangibly account for...yet there are aspects of our universe that are beyond the explanation of science, the most prominant being the origin of it all...some may simply accept that the universe is an infinite entity, and perhaps there is some evidence of that...yet to accept the infinite nature of the universe is to take a certain leap of faith, and therein lies the parallel to intelligent design.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
What is the ultimate goal of science classes? It's not to teach us the differences between physical states or ecosystems. These things are merely tools to teach kids to be critical thinkers, to be able to be objective and not just accept everything they hear. When a science teacher makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence then he/she has lossed that objective. If there is going to be any claims or talk of the origins of life and this world then that's an open invite for ID and creationism to be discussed as well.

I agree that if a science teacher "makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence," then he or she is acting inappropriately, but that's no reason not to discuss an extremely well supported area of science like evolutionary biology or to put a psuedoscience like ID creationism or astrology in the classroom.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Whaspe
What is the ultimate goal of science classes? It's not to teach us the differences between physical states or ecosystems. These things are merely tools to teach kids to be critical thinkers, to be able to be objective and not just accept everything they hear. When a science teacher makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence then he/she has lossed that objective. If there is going to be any claims or talk of the origins of life and this world then that's an open invite for ID and creationism to be discussed as well.

Again, what part of science class do you not understand. ID and creationism are not science!

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. You are free to believe what you want. I wouldn't want science teachers ridiculing people who believe in God, that should be a fireable offense, but in my opinion, so should the teaching of non-science in a science classroom.

Every science class I have had the teacher has brought up the subject of origins and how you would be stupid to believe in a God. I stand by my statement. Personally I study cell biology, evolution has been crucial to what I research. But I think that this has become such an issue because evolution is being used as a tool to attack people of faith. And my point is valid if teachers attack faith in a science class then they are opening the door to the type of creationism/ID talk.

 

[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.

Thus, you libs become a Fascist trying to "defend yourselves" from Bush who you consider a Fascist.

Oh how it all comes full circle.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Whaspe
What is the ultimate goal of science classes? It's not to teach us the differences between physical states or ecosystems. These things are merely tools to teach kids to be critical thinkers, to be able to be objective and not just accept everything they hear. When a science teacher makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence then he/she has lossed that objective. If there is going to be any claims or talk of the origins of life and this world then that's an open invite for ID and creationism to be discussed as well.

I agree that if a science teacher "makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence," then he or she is acting inappropriately, but that's no reason not to discuss an extremely well supported area of science like evolutionary biology or to put a psuedoscience like ID creationism or astrology in the classroom.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the root of the problem comes from these "cracks" and "sneers" from teachers. If you want someone to see your point and listen to them don't insult and attack them. All you do is put them up on their guard and they'll never listen, even to the point of being foolishly obstinate.

This is what I see at the root of the Creationism/ID argument. It would be far better for the rest of us to have a little respect and compassion for these people, then I think the guards may start to come down. Religion opposed the fact that the world is round, spins around the sun.... etc. But I don't see alot of "fundies" out there debating and arguing against these facts. Given time evolution will too, become accepted IMHO. Me and Rip argued this before he was banned and he still disagreed with me, so I know the end is not necessarily near or easily acheived but give it time.

 

[Deudalus]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the root of the problem comes from these "cracks" and "sneers" from teachers. If you want someone to see your point and listen to them don't insult and attack them. All you do is put them up on their guard and they'll never listen, even to the point of being foolishly obstinate.

The problem is deeper than that. There is a big difference between what is actually said and what is heard when you are dealing with extremeists.

For example, when I hear the words "Intelligent Design" I think to myself "The possibility that a deity of some sort created the universe either directly or indirectly." I don't think Christianity or any other specific religion. I simply think, the possibility of a higher power which I cannot rule out nor can anyone else.

But when a hardcore leftist hears the words "Intelligent Design" they immediately think to themselves "The Earth is flat, 2 of each animal in the world on one freakin boat, Earth only afew thousand years old, etc etc."

It is a knee jerk reaction unfortunately and what is even more unfortunate is that often times it is people like this that teach children.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the root of the problem comes from these "cracks" and "sneers" from teachers. If you want someone to see your point and listen to them don't insult and attack them. All you do is put them up on their guard and they'll never listen, even to the point of being foolishly obstinate.

The problem is deeper than that. There is a big difference between what is actually said and what is heard when you are dealing with extremeists.

For example, when I hear the words "Intelligent Design" I think to myself "The possibility that a deity of some sort created the universe either directly or indirectly." I don't think Christianity or any other specific religion. I simply think, the possibility of a higher power which I cannot rule out nor can anyone else.

But when a hardcore leftist hears the words "Intelligent Design" they immediately think to themselves "The Earth is flat, 2 of each animal in the world on one freakin boat, Earth only afew thousand years old, etc etc."

It is a knee jerk reaction unfortunately and what is even more unfortunate is that often times it is people like this that teach children.

This isn't a lefty or righty or religious or science or any other issue. It's simply whether or not ID belongs in a science classroom. Since it is not a scientificly supportable theory, I see nothing to suggest that it should be there. This isn't a complex issue, it is only made so by people with another agenda (whatever side they may be on).

 

[EatSpam]

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.

Thus, you libs become a Fascist trying to "defend yourselves" from Bush who you consider a Fascist.

Oh how it all comes full circle.

I'm a lib and I have no problem teaching ID in humanites class. Put ID in along with all the other bizaire religious stuff.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

For example, when I hear the words "Intelligent Design" I think to myself "The possibility that a deity of some sort created the universe either directly or indirectly." I don't think Christianity or any other specific religion. I simply think, the possibility of a higher power which I cannot rule out nor can anyone else.

That last part, why the tooth fairy can't be ruled out, is why it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class. It belongs in discussion of why people posit higher powers for things they can't directly witness and don't fully understand. It isn't that you are open to speculation, but rather that you are biased in a particularly speculative direction, a higher power, that provides your motivation to think your point of view rational. Your position is identical to the fervid belief that the universe was created by the Easter Bunny. You came to the debate with a prior existing faith and want to hang on to it. But science can't disprove your faith. So keep your faith out of science. What science can do is debunk some of the crap some faiths claim as truths as for example that evolution didn't happen. If you believe that there is no God if evolution is true there is no help for it. You bought into a lie and built a castle on sand. But the fact and truth of evolution doesn't rock the faith of millions of other more intelligent Christians because science can't touch that ultimate question and doesn't pretend to.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the root of the problem comes from these "cracks" and "sneers" from teachers. If you want someone to see your point and listen to them don't insult and attack them. All you do is put them up on their guard and they'll never listen, even to the point of being foolishly obstinate.

The problem is deeper than that. There is a big difference between what is actually said and what is heard when you are dealing with extremeists.

For example, when I hear the words "Intelligent Design" I think to myself "The possibility that a deity of some sort created the universe either directly or indirectly." I don't think Christianity or any other specific religion. I simply think, the possibility of a higher power which I cannot rule out nor can anyone else.

What's relevant to the discussion isn't what a particular person like you thinks when they hear the term ID, but rather the actual concept of Intelligent Design that the ID movement is attempting to have taught in schools.

It is a knee jerk reaction unfortunately and what is even more unfortunate is that often times it is people like this that teach children.

Yours is the knee jerk reaction--you've just admitted that you're basing your reaction to Intelligent Design on the first thought that comes into your head instead of actually reading what the ID proponents write to see what they actually plan to teach in our schools.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Whaspe
What is the ultimate goal of science classes? It's not to teach us the differences between physical states or ecosystems. These things are merely tools to teach kids to be critical thinkers, to be able to be objective and not just accept everything they hear. When a science teacher makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence then he/she has lossed that objective. If there is going to be any claims or talk of the origins of life and this world then that's an open invite for ID and creationism to be discussed as well.

I agree that if a science teacher "makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence," then he or she is acting inappropriately, but that's no reason not to discuss an extremely well supported area of science like evolutionary biology or to put a psuedoscience like ID creationism or astrology in the classroom.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the root of the problem comes from these "cracks" and "sneers" from teachers.

While I agree that it's a problem where it occurs, your experience is not the same as mine. In my experience with high schools, biology teachers bend over backwards to avoid offending the religious instead of making fun of them as you describe. A recent study showed that 40% of secondary school biology teachers don't even mention evolution due to the political controversy and 20% outright teach creationism. I don't think trauma from high school biology teachers is the source of the fundamentalist's weak faith that inspires them to push their religious beliefs into the public sphere.

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Whaspe
What is the ultimate goal of science classes? It's not to teach us the differences between physical states or ecosystems. These things are merely tools to teach kids to be critical thinkers, to be able to be objective and not just accept everything they hear. When a science teacher makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence then he/she has lossed that objective. If there is going to be any claims or talk of the origins of life and this world then that's an open invite for ID and creationism to be discussed as well.

I agree that if a science teacher "makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence," then he or she is acting inappropriately, but that's no reason not to discuss an extremely well supported area of science like evolutionary biology or to put a psuedoscience like ID creationism or astrology in the classroom.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the root of the problem comes from these "cracks" and "sneers" from teachers.

While I agree that it's a problem where it occurs, your experience is not the same as mine. In my experience with high schools, biology teachers bend over backwards to avoid offending the religious instead of making fun of them as you describe. A recent study showed that 40% of secondary school biology teachers don't even mention evolution due to the political controversy and 20% outright teach creationism. I don't think trauma from high school biology teachers is the source of the fundamentalist's weak faith that inspires them to push their religious beliefs into the public sphere.

None of my teachers or professors ever said anything antagonistic in that manner, and my education occurred in New York.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Every science class I have had the teacher has brought up the subject of origins and how you would be stupid to believe in a God. I stand by my statement. Personally I study cell biology, evolution has been crucial to what I research. But I think that this has become such an issue because evolution is being used as a tool to attack people of faith. And my point is valid if teachers attack faith in a science class then they are opening the door to the type of creationism/ID talk.

And that's wrong. I've never seen this and I've taken a lot of science classes in my time. In fact, some of my best science teachers have been pretty religious. Evolution isn't used to attack people of faith, just to attack non-science being taught in science classes.

Of course, there are some fools who use evolution to attack faith, just as there are other fools who use faith to attack science. We shouldn't dictate policy based on the ideas of fools. I just don't think teachers should attack faith, nor do I think that they should teach ID (in science class).

We agree, I hope you see this. Please dont justify, "let's teach ID" simply because you had a bad experience w/ a teacher bashing religion. In my opinion, that is just as wrong.

 

[assemblage]

Everyone knows the ascended race of space aliens known as the Ancients were directly involved in human evolution.

 

[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.

 

[Harvey]

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.

A simplistic analysis like that suggests UNintelligent design is winning the evolutionary race.

 

[cquark]

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.

Evolution isn't random.

 

[cquark]

Despite all the money they put into their public relations campaign, the main speakers and writers of the ID creationism movement have a hard time saying Intelligent Design isn't Creationism with a straight face. While the creators of the Intelligent Design concept like Johnson, Behe, and Dembski offer alternatives in their books like aliens as Intelligent Designers, it's clear that not only do those ideas skirt the issue (what Intelligent Designer made the aliens?) but are a simple cover created to push creationism.

There are dozens of examples of this available via google, but here's a recent one: Dembski's response to Bush's announcement. He starts off in full public relations mode:

Intelligent design is a winner in the public debate over biological origins not only because it has the backing of powerful ideas, arguments, and evidence but also because it does not turn this debate into a Bible-science controversy.

then he starts adding a bit of God to it, making his early comment about the Bible a lie:

intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture.

and finally exposes the Intelligent Design agenda fully:

Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: cquark

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.

Evolution isn't random.

Well, it's random in the sense that we don't control the nature (didn't anyways). But we are forced to adapt to the planet we live on, and therefore it's not random.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: cquark

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.

Evolution isn't random.

Well, it's random in the sense that we don't control the nature (didn't anyways).

That's an idiosyncratic and useless definition of random. By that definition, gravity's random too, as we can't control it.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: cquark

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.

Evolution isn't random.

Well, it's random in the sense that we don't control the nature (didn't anyways).

That's an idiosyncratic and useless definition of random. By that definition, gravity's random too, as we can't control it.

No, what i'm saying is the place we happened to pop into existence is random. Besides, it's random in our perspective, but not in the bigger view.