Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

[Lorenzo]

I forgot to add that I wouldn't mind seeing Creation taught by an atheist. An atheist might actually do a better job, bringing out seldom seen verses of the bible that are incoherent, or not agreeing with other verses. For that reason, I don't favor biblical creationists being left alone to teach creation.

[Blackwood]

Really? I thought the whole point of intelligent design was not that the "Christian God" created the earth, but rather that some sort of "higher bieng" did. In other words it could have been Odin, Allah, God (ie the Christian one), or the Giant Winged Lizard of Screwutyich.

I think that it is rather stupid to say to kids "There are problems with the theory of Evolution. But we're not going to tell you them here. Go across the hall to your Theology/Philosophy class to learn what the problems are."

I think that if critical thinking is to be taught, if evolution is to be taught, and if science is to be taught, well, you have to distinguish between them.

The scary part in all this is how organized religious fundamentalists are and at the same time how dishonest they are about introducing the concept of "Intelligent Design" If you look closely you will find that the proponents of ID are all Christians. The rational part of their brains have realized that Creationism (what they really believe) will not fly in the minds of most Americans. ID, however, is designed to make it more palatable and marketable. I seriously doubt they will accept and teaching of ID unless it leads to their inevitable conclusion that it is the Christian God that is responsible for creation.

The plain fact is science is about learning, discovery, and challenging the status quo, and admitting when it is wrong and learning from mistakes. Religion is about blind faith without question. And since religious fundamentalists are convinced they, and only they, know the will of God, they execute that blind vision without ever questioning what they are doing. Religious followers can never be wrong about their God, nor can God be wrong to them NO MATTER WHAT. That's what makes them so dangerous.

Since the ID people are clearly dishonest in what they really are trying to accomplish it makes them even the more worth srutiny.

And make no mistake, on a seperate but related note, Bush has picked a serious Christian as his Supreme Court nominee. Never has been so little known about a man to head toward the Supreme Court. How can we have a man up there we know so little about?

The point is these people have serious agendas; and they can't be wrong, since God is on their side....

[Cynth]

I agree with you Blackwood about ID being espoused by Christians. This is not about some Higher Power, it is about the Christian god. If one goes to the website I cited and you do some tedious searching through members and their publications (particularly the older ones when they were not so careful to hide their affiliations) and through the organization that funds them, you will see that they are evangelical Christians. I have nothing against anyone's personal religious beliefs. But in this case I believe there is an intentional effort to hide who is funding this so-called "research".

[Blackwood]

here's a great article on the subject by Charles Krauthammer in Times magazine that clearly outlines where the drive for all this is coming from:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krau ... 69,00.html

Of course fundamentalist Christians will say that Charles will burn in hell forever since he is Jewish...

[Lark]

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

This is the first thing the man has said that I agree with...

frankly I'm gob smacked.

[Bloomfield]

here's a great article on the subject by Charles Krauthammer in Times magazine that clearly outlines where the drive for all this is coming from:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krau ... 69,00.html

Of course fundamentalist Christians will say that Charles will burn in hell forever since he is Jewish...

Look, I agree that ID as a scientific theory is nonsense. I agree that there are specific political forces pushing it. I agree we have to always watch the fingers of those in power.

But I don't like how you are painting fundamental Christians as villians in your last two posts. It's not fair. Also, I would hesitate to impute malice to people who deeply and honestly believe that you can build a car with science, but you can't understand what we are doing on Earth, where we come from, and where we are going to. You should really try to keep the brushstrokes fine.

[Blackwood]

Hey Cynth,

So what ever happened to "Thou shall not lie" - hiding their true intentions does that not constitute deceipt the very goal of lying?

I really find these people to be illogical......

It's similar to when Larry King has Evangelical Minsters on TV and asks them what they think of other religions and they always answer how they respect other religions, which is just such an obvious blatant lie. They believe everybody else is going to be tortured in hell with the approval of their all loving God....but on TV they say they repsect other faiths...

The dishonesty is mind bogling..I wish Larry would become a serious/meaningful interviewer and ask them follow-up questions to expose their fraud...

oh well..

[NicoMoreno]

It's possible that they are all Christians. I won't dispute it. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. ID as a theory (and scientific or not, it is still a theory) is non-denominational, by implication.

Anyway, that's unimportant. I think the real problem is that most people don't want Christianity taught in school. Especially if it's "disguised" as ID.

But the reason I don't mind it being included along with evolution is that I don't see the two of them as mutually exclusive, simply because I don't believe that evolution explains how something can be created from nothing. (In other words "life" where there was none before)

And Bloomfield, I'm sorry. That last sentence is not clear. Mostly because I wrote it without really knowing what I was trying to say. Let me try again:
--Science is a process (ie the scientific process) whereby phenomena are explored and explained using experimentation and such... somebody else can provide a more accurate description.
--Evolution is a theory (or a "scientific" theory if you must). A "subset" (sort of) of science.
--Critical Thinking is a tool that is used to practise science.

Too many people view science as it's own religion, often subconsciously. I think that all of these should be properly defined, explained and taught to students. I do not think that this is being done successfully. As an example let me give you some dialog from my classmates in Electrical Engineering: (the exact words are paraphrases, rather than direct quotes, but are pretty accurate)

Time: 1st day of class in a new semester
Prof: Welcome to ECE 333. This semester we will be learning Fourier Transforms and Series. We will look at Laplace Transforms as well. To give you a motivating example lets look at the board.

Student: Is this going to be on the exam?


I kid you not. At least once EVERY semester. Along with a week (at least) of very similar questions before the midterm AND final. Something is definitely wrong, but I doubt it's caused by ID being or not being taught in school.

[Blackwood]

hi Bloom,

anybody can believe what they want, that is fine. But i see clear evidence that fundamentalist Christians have decided that they take their beliefs and want to impose their views on others by actively getting engaged in the political process.

I think this is dangerous, it is counter to what the Founding Fathers wanted. History is full of examples of religious fundamenatlists acting politcal and it has always turned out to be disastrous. Therefore I believe I am justified in describing what i see to be a disturbing trend

Incidently, none of what i posted about fundamentalist Christians is incorrect. If it is please correct me.

Also for clarification: I believe most Christians are very decent people who want to help others and I applaud them for that. I don't share their religious beliefs and that's fine. I am specifically mentioning fundamentalists who take the bible literal and think they are doing God's will. These people are dangerous since they are arrogant and blind in their belief.

[Blackwood]

Nico wrote:

It's possible that they are all Christians. I won't dispute it. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. ID as a theory (and scientific or not, it is still a theory) is non-denominational, by implication.

Anyway, that's unimportant.

It can't be non-denominational if the proponents have a hidden agenda of promoting "their" God. Since the true agenda is hidden by the proponents it is not unimportant as it is based on a lie.

If there is true scientific evidence let the science community examine it. Since no such evidence has been forthcoming it shouldn't be taught in science class. Let it be taught in bible school...

[I.D.10-t]

Man I have to change my name. I thought that half of the posts were attacking me! In the future I hope people call me I.D.10-t. Not ID or I.D.

[missy]

small clarification:
***********************
"quote="Congratulations"]missy wrote:

It's the high-level, "intelligent" students that are least concerned with real learning. Homework is assigned so the students can continue to learn by rote, rather than gain a deeper understanding of the material.

/hijack
************************
The above was written by Congratulations, not me. As the parent of a highly gifted, ADD student, the above is NOT my opinion or experience.

[Random notes]

But the reason I don't mind it being included along with evolution is that I don't see the two of them as mutually exclusive, simply because I don't believe that evolution explains how something can be created from nothing. (In other words "life" where there was none before)

I have never understood why people who find it difficult to accept that "life" was created out of nothing (or, more properly, life created from non-living matter) apparently have no problem accepting that there is a being existing outside of time, space and matter and that this being then created time, space and matter out of nothing. Furthermore, people who cannot wrap their mind around the possibility that the universe emerged from something preceding it of which we can have no knowledge, have no trouble accepting that there exists a being which is itself uncreated and eternal and has no precedent but has itself infinite creative power.

The problem with pointing to gaps in a scientific theory is that any scientist will say, "So? Of course there are gaps in scientific theories. That is what makes them scientific."

Science is a method of model building which approaches truth by successive approximation. Scientists seek regularity in nature, some relationship between observations, and create a model, called a "theory", to describe why it should be so. Then they go back and use the theory to make predictions about what observations could be made that would falsify the theory and then seek out those observations. If the observations fail to falsify the theory then a body of evidence is created which is consistent with the theory. If evidence is found which is inconsistent with the theory then the theory is modified. If sufficient contradictory evidence is found, then the theory is trashed and supplanted by a new one. And off we go again.

(I claim NO credit for originality here - see the works of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn for the ideas which I have presumed to oversimplify and idealize.)

Truth is an elusive quarry - science will get closer and closer but never reach it. And this is the fundamental difference between science and religion, especially fundamentalist religion. Religion declares itself to hold the truth to which reality must conform. Science observes reality and builds its theories to conform.

And that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Roger

[Cynth]

Bloomfield, I think you were not addressing me but I am having a similar difficulty. I am often quite worried about the fact that fundmentalist and/or evangelical Christians (and perhaps not just Christians, but fundamentalists of any religion) seem to be organizing successfully and may become an even more powerful lobby or voting block or the like.

I would be worried about any group of people doing this whose values and beliefs are so different than mine. I do believe that they are acting in sincere accordance with their beliefs, but then I must do the same.

I am not sure what other name I should use--possibly just say "conservatives" to avoid seeming to make a religious slur, but then I don't know if "conservatives" would all be supporting some of the things that disturb me. Would "religious right" be a better term? That would include all those who sincerely feel their religious beliefs must be a part of their lives and the duty to strive to have them be part of the lives of non-believers as well but it would not target a specific religion.

I do not know if the word "malice" fits into the situation. The word "dangerous" seems to me to be very appropriate. This is just my point of view. I don't feel hatred, but I do feel scared. And I have no doubt that I will become angry, even if these people are acting from sincere and honest belief. I certainly don't think I know what we are doing on Earth, etc. I don't understand that comment. Is it not the religious who feel that they have the answers to all these questions?

[Wormdiet]

small clarification:
***********************
"quote="Congratulations"]missy wrote:

It's the high-level, "intelligent" students that are least concerned with real learning. Homework is assigned so the students can continue to learn by rote, rather than gain a deeper understanding of the material.

/hijack
************************
The above was written by Congratulations, not me. As the parent of a highly gifted, ADD student, the above is NOT my opinion or experience.

My apologies for sloppiness in quoting