Incredible.
Kansas was the laughing stock of the world a few years back when they devalued evolution in their state science standards for young students. Their reputation was only marginally improved when the creationists who used misleading tactics to get on the school board were ousted.
But a new school board is in again. And they learned nothing since the first time: they voted to falsely smear real science once again.
I am upset by this, very upset. Intelligent Design is a virus, a parasite on reality, and it once again has a toehold, even after what is becoming a resounding defeat in Dover, Pennsylvania.
I don’t have time to write my thoughts now, so instead I’ll point you to my friend PZ Myers at Pharyngula, who shows just why the new school board is dishonest, misleading, and willing to destroy the futures of the very children it should be fostering.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
November 8th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Another sad day for science in our increasingly Talibanesque country.
BTW, the poll in the MSN link was poorly worded, as usual.
>>>
What’s your view on evolution theory and education?
104151 responses
Alternatives to evolutionary theory should be given equal weight in science textbooks. 30%
Alternatives should not be mentioned in science textbooks. 53%
Neither response reflects my view. 17%
>>>
Nowhere was “alternatives” defined. If it had been defined as “non-scientific alternatives”, then, since ID isn’t scientific, the whole matter could have been easily wrapped up and disposed of, which is what the six medieval folks on the Kansas school board should have done if they had any knowledge of how science works, and had been honest about this matter.
This sort of reminds me of the stories about the Puritans traveling to the New World to seek “religious freedom”. Once they got here they then oppressed every other religion within their area of political influence and authority. A quick check of the Discovery Institutes’s “Wedge Strategy” reveals that their plan is identical as it applies to science education in particular and American society in general.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Congratulations to the 6 bright morons at the Kansas School Board. You just set us back a couple hundred years. While you’re at it, why not just tie up witches to the steak, throw all the physicists, astronomers, chemists, biologists, and all scientists in general in jail.
I wish I could give those 6 members a taste of the world without a proper footing in science. Why don’t we start by removing their blood pressure medication, their mode of transportation (unless they walk to their rulings), their clothing, cell phones, cameras, computers, and pretty much all the trappings of modern civilized life.
Guess this amounts to preaching to the choir. BA, I think every rational minded individual is extremely disappointed at this moment. It’s one small battle, but the war is far from over. If anything, this goes to show, that days of understanding, and defensiveness are over. It’s time to futher up the ante, and using war terminology, attack with all our devisions. Let’s blitz the hell out of these morons, before this decision infects other astrology reading, bible thumping, science repressing school board members.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:35 am
Now, I’m not on the side of the Kansas school board on this, but not quite on yours either. First of all: You probably don’t spoil the childrens’ future by teaching ID or the like. Even if they can’t become biologists, they can always become lawyers. Second: Is every scientific finding good? Blood pressure was mentionned. Now, with the new guidelines developed from the latest research, more than half of the Norwegian population over 50 years old, ought to be on blood pressure medication. Is that sound? You put most of the population on medication, and that shouldn’t be necessary.
But I agree the board members shoul walk to their rulings. It saves fossile fuels (did you get it? Fossile? Hehe
).
November 9th, 2005 at 1:37 am
I am disturbed by the backlash against Christians this causes in those who are rightly opposed to this.
A very small minority of Christians; including conservative, evangelical Christians; strongly believe in a strictly literal interpertation of Genesis. An even smaller number believe it’s important enough to make such a problem out of with respect to schools.
Most Christians, like most people, don’t care too much about the scientific origins of the universe. They take Genesis for it’s theological points (fall of man, etc.) and don’t focus much on the literal seven days, because it means little to their faith.
Those Christians who are interested in the physical creation can very easily take a much more symbolic interpertation of the 7 days, believe it to be true but embellished over time, and still study and understand the scientific creation of the universe. This is because anybody who accepts that 1) Genesis is a symbolic and glossed account of creation and 2) it is not intended to be a end-all be-all with regards to human knowledge about the begining of the universe, or else it would be longer than half a page, has no trouble viewin gboth science and faith as non-overlapping areas.
A person who approaches the issue with both logical reasoning and faith can find easy harmony between science and faith once you understand that they are two entirely diffrent fields of study, that at best have only passing references to eachother, instead of being mutually exclusive.
It boils down to people on both sides viewing faith and science as mutually exclusive. The religious person who dismisses science because the bible doesn’t support it is equally guilty of illogic as the scientist who mocks faith because science can’t prove it. Neither requires the support of the other to stand on it’s own.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:39 am
In sympathy with the Kansas School Board, I hereby denounce Ohms Laws as well. I’m sick and tired of having to go down to the shop every time the result of U/I=R does not fit the resistors I just happen to have in stock. From now on any resistor wil do.
P.S. If anybody have electronics they want repaired, just contact me. Trust me, I know what I’m doing.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:29 am
I wonder if the sane-thinking people in this world could compromise, or pretend to compromise, with the creationist nutjobs stalking the schoolboards. Has anybody else here seen James Burke’s show **The Day the Universe Changed**? I grew up a huge Burke fan, from the age of nine or so, and I probably got my first in-depth view of evolution and natural selection from the episode of that series entitled “Fit to Rule”. I think I lucked out, because Burke presents most of his science material in a historical way, starting with the way people believed at one point and then presenting the discoveries which made them change that belief. “Fit to Rule” starts with Linnaeus, at a time when just about everybody believed in a special creation for each living species. Then, oops, we start turning up fossils of animals that don’t exist anymore. Has God been making mistakes?
The last third of the episode goes a mite too far, I think: in discussing the effects Darwin’s theory has had on the modern world, he notes that Nazis, American robber barons and Soviet Communists all took the theory for inspiration — even though these ideologies are mutually conflicting. That’s probably right, as far as it goes, but it seems likely these same movements could have arisen without the pseudo-scientific gloss which appropriating evolution’s good name gave them. (I doubt Darwin and Sumner alone are enough to explain Andrew Carnegie.) Still, it’s a heck of a good TV show.
Now, why can’t we dust off that basic premise? I can vouch from personal experience that the basketball coaches we have teaching biology just love to plunk their classes in front of an “educational” video. What if we made an hour-long show in the “Fit to Rule” format, removing most of the Social Darwinism/Communism stuff so we can spend the time covering more recent discoveries? Off the top of my head, I’d say we could include the origin of drug-resistant diseases, the debate over punctuated equilibrium, discoveries in genetics and genomics — heck, the problem really is choosing which of the many great topics one can fit into an hour and explain well.
This has the advantage that it “presents alternatives” to the E-word. It just happens to go on and show that, oops, those alternatives don’t work.
Any budding filmmakers out there? I can also say from my own experience that one can produce astonishingly professional-looking results with a camcorder, Adobe Premiere and a few all-nighters.
Hey, it’s not likely that we’ll get teachers to show Penn and Teller’s **Bullsh-t**, which is the other great TV treatment of creationism I’ve seen. A friend and I were watching the “Creationism” episode the other day, actually, and (naturally) we laughed our heads off. At one point, one of the ID supporters harassing the local Georgia school board says, “There’s a man-centered world view and a God-centered world view”. How deliciously ironic: if you take “God” in the Einsteinian sense — “subtle but not malicious”, etc. — or if you believe in a Deistic “Watchmaker”, then the modern scientific view is profoundly God-centered. In simplest terms, isn’t creationism just a denial of how big and old the Universe really is? Doesn’t it try to scale things back to the level of human history and nothing more? What could be more anthropocentric — more “man-centered” — than creationism? However you dress it up, it’s still an excuse to believe that we are central, that the Guy in Charge looks basically like us and cares about what we do — that the whole purpose of the Cosmos hinges upon our behavior.
How unpleasantly vain.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:01 am
the “conflict” between science and religion is like a “conflict” between math and history becasue the history textbook said that 30 out of 100 is “about one third”
the difference of course is that religion isn’t taught in public schools, but it’s the same basic premise that people are mistakenly viewing two non-overlapping subjects, that at most mention the same general idea in two totally different contexts, as mutually exclusive.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:05 am
and no, creationism has nothing to do with man being at the center of everything “no matter how you dress it up”
nowhere in the bible does it state that mankind is the center of anything, either metaphorically or physically, with respect to the universe.
what scares me about some of the comments here is that some of you are just as close-minded as the die-hards who want to teach creationism in public schools.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:35 am
Oops!
According to MSN, “The board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.” But that’s what science *is*! They shot themselves in the foot–they *admitted* that they aren’t teaching science. It sounds like this could easily be overturned in court.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:41 am
“and no, creationism has nothing to do with man being at the center of everything”
Genisis 1: 26, 27 ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air,and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in His image, in the image of God, He created him: male and female He created them.
Let them have dominion? Seems pretty clear to me!
November 9th, 2005 at 3:42 am
In the early 1970’s, James Michener wrote the novel “Space” about the early days of human spaceflight. In the book, he also looks into the future and predicted an anti-science crusade of religious fundamentalists just like we see it now. That he could sense it 30 years ago just shows to me, that we don’t have to deal with a short-term phenomenon that will go away soon.
Here in Old Europe, we are a little bit better. Some recent quotes from the Vatican even say, that they don’t have problems with evolution. But the fundamentalists also try to get their feet into our doors.
We must fight ignorance every day, because more and more people seem to think that ignorance is a virtue.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:51 am
Looks like they even redifined science so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:57 am
are you going to dispute that man is not the dominant creature on the face of the earth? that seems obvious.
what we are not at the center of the universe, which the bible does not claim.
you should understand the difference between the earth and the universe.
i’m not here to defend this school board, i think it is reprehensible. what i am here to speak out against is close-mindedness on both sides of the issue, that’s it’s not just the creationists.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:26 am
Thinking that humans are the dominant creature on earth doesn’t make it so.
In the environment we have created for ourselves we are no longer evolving, we have to rely on our intelligence and technology to survive. Allowing religious dogma to dictate education and scientific research, Oh Yeah! they would love that!, will send us right back into the caves we came from.
It’s ironic then to realize that this will start us evolving again.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:47 am
Hi Andy,
I think you’ll find that I’m very open-minded, but I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
The Bible talks about one planet, right? There is no mention of other planets, with or without organisms, which might exist by the millions throughout the enormity of the Universe. And indeed, why should the Bible do so? Unless you think fundamentalists are open-minded enough to consider the possibility of life on other planets, I will stand by my remarks. However, from my personal experience debating many such religious individuals, the majority of them believe Earth is the only planet with life.
Nevertheless, my point was that many Christian fundamentalists do regard themselves as being created in the image of God - and act like it. This view is propagated by the kind of scripture I cited from Genesis. Actually, believe it or not, I really do know the difference between the Earth and the Universe, but given the Kansas decision, it does sort of leave one to ponder whether or not they do.
Your differentiation doesn’t matter so much because the fundamentalist’s narrow view does see man as the apex of all creation from an interpretation of scripture. I’m not arguing whether or not it is justifiable from a logical sense, I’m stating that they do it anyway. So, you’re technically correct, but in practice they do see themselves as the apex of all creation for the aforementioned reason.
You’ll get no argument from me regarding the ecological footprint we humans are leaving on the Earth. We’ve boldly expressed our “dominance” most assuredly. You might also consider the modal bacter for the dominant creatures:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html
Cheers,
Mike
November 9th, 2005 at 5:15 am
Here’s the email addresses for the board:
http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html
According to Pharyngula comments, the following board members voted against the new standards:
Janet Waugh, Sue Gamble, and Carol Rupe
According to WaPo, the following board members voted for:
Kathy Martin, Iris Van Meter and Kenneth Willard
Can anyone round out the lists so we can let everyone involved know how we feel?
November 9th, 2005 at 5:46 am
Also Bacon voted for the new standards. Since we know that 2 of the ones that voted against are Democrats, maybe that’d help identifying the 4th member that voted against.
I was looking at their qualifications, which seem to be, erm, somewhat thin. Since this is basically the top educator position in the state, aren’t they required to have had some better education? Unspecified ‘degrees’ from the university of kansas, or degrees in ‘christian education’ seem a bit dodgy.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:49 am
It appears that Bill Wagnon is the 4th member that opposed.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:11 am
Everyone who is voicing their opinion here should also voice it to the rest of the country, as a few people above have mentioned. Like HawaiiArmenian said, we’re preaching to the choir here. Write to the board members, write letters to the editor. Don’t stop until this decision is reversed, and any future move similar to this in any state is defeated. Ask your friends to do the same.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:26 am
Andy,
I completely agree with you. As a Christian it does disturb me that often people mistake all Christians as fundamentalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. My pastors favorite expression is, “Don’t leave your brains in the narthex (entrance hall).” She loves science. And I lover her for that!
On another note, I just finished reading Stephen Jay Gould’s Rocks of Ages and you summed it up perfectly!
breeze
November 9th, 2005 at 7:37 am
Guess we won’t be seeing any breakthroughs on the avian flu from Kansas. If the virus does evolve to be virulent, it will be a perfect example of evolution.
I wonder what Kansas would do if top colleges refuse to accept students from Kansas because their science course was not rigorous enough? That would have them change in a hurry.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:29 am
Hi Breeze & Andy,
There are a couple of polls to consider. One often cites something like 90% of people in the US describe themselves as followers of the Christian faith. Another poll indicates around 50% of US citizens embrace the science of evolution. Clearly, if we accept these numbers then there must be millions of Christians supporting evolution.
Well, that’s sort of heart warming. Isn’t it?
Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic and biologist, has written one of the best refutations of Intelligent Design you can get your hands on. His book titled “Finding Darwin’s God” comes highly recommend to anyone interested in this subject. You might also want to pick up the November issue of Natural History magazine, as it is devoted to the subjects of Evolution and Intelligent Design. I was especially moved by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson’s article “The Perimeter of Ignorance.â€?
Here’s an excerpt from it on explaining Intelligent Design:
“I don’t know how it works. It’s too complicated for me to figure out. It’s too complicated for any human being to figure out. So it must be the product of a higher intelligence. What do you do with that line of reasoning? Do you just cede the solving of problems to someone smarter than you, someone who’s not even human? Do you tell students to pursue only questions with easy answers? There may be a limit to what the human mind can figure about our universe. But how presumptuous it would be for me to claim that if I can’t solve a problem, neither can any other person who has ever lived or who will ever be born.�
For my part, I’ve read the works of Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Plantinga, et al. I am not impressed with irreducible complexity and exposing alleged “gapsâ€? of evidence and knowledge. The statistical and probability arguments have also been thoroughly debunked by Elliott Sober.
The only group of people I’m taking issue with are those who are trying to poison our public science classroom…be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever. Intelligent Design is religion and does not belong in our public schools. When someone from the ID camp provides a measurable mechanism for an intelligent designer, beyond arguments from ignorance and “God of the gaps” thinking, then I will be all ears.
Cheers,
Mike
November 9th, 2005 at 8:39 am
First, I agree with Phil and you others on how stupid this is. I am an evolutionist. Period.
1. The histrionics do not work. Comparing people to the Taliban is only going to drive them deeper into their own camps. I *know* a woman who experience the real Taliban first hand. She’d probably slap you for trivializing what they were with such a comparison.
I consider Penn & Teller to be the worst thing to happen to skepticism in years, so that should spell out my view on such tactics. I have persoanlly seen how their abusive approach merely makes casual pseudoscience believers just circle the wagons against attack.
2. The strawman arguments don’t work. No one ruled against blood pressure medicines, cell phones or cars. You need to stay focused on debunking ID. Everything else is propaganda and ideology which, again, is only going to drive away the people you most need to reach.
3. Stop with the “ID is for STOOOOOPYD people!” rhetoric. Not everyone is well versed evolutionary biology and genetic science, and so don’t immediately see the logic of it all. Not everyone is a science geek. Ignorance is not a synonym for stupid, even if the term is commonly misused in that way. Ignorant simply means uninformed.
4. As others have said, not all religious people are fundamentalist. You are not going to convert them to and athiestic or even agnostic POV with words. Stay focused on the ID.
It reminds me of a illustrative joke I heard years ago.
STUDENT1: Hey, I’m new on campus. Can you tell me where the library is at?
STUDENT2: Oh, for goodness sake! How did they let you into a fine university such as this? Are you a total moron? You expect to do well here with grammar like that? Now ask me again without ending your sentence with a preopsition.
STUDENT1: OK. Can you tell me where the library is at, @$$hole?
November 9th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Here’s a complete list of how they voted:
Voting Yes
Steve Abrams (R) - sabrams@hit.net
John Bacon (R) - jwmsbacon@aol.com
Kathy Martin (R) - martinkathy@yahoo.com
Connie Morris (R) - conniemorris2010@yahoo.com
Iris Van Meter (R) - vanmeter@terraworld.net
Ken Willard (R) - kwillard@cox.net
Voting No
Sue Gamble (R) - MSGamble@swbell.net
Carol Rupe (R) - carolrupe@hotmail.com
Bill Wagnon (D) - bill.wagnon@washburn.edu
Janet Waugh (D) - JWaugh1052@aol.com
Please let them know how you feel.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:18 am
The first word which came to mind was “Unbelievable”. Sadly, it’s all too believable. Hopefully, this will get overturned soon - according to NPR, four of the six who supported this nonsense are up for re-election next year.
The redefinition of science is a blatant attempt to introduce teaching of religion into the schools, so this all ought to get overturned eventually. But given the increasing Taliban presence on the Supreme Court, I don’t think we can rely on that.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:43 am
My first reaction?
Hey, Gravity is just a theory too. So it’s a good thing there are no cliffs in Kansas.
Here’s hoping that the voting majority in Kansas will develop some intelligence soon.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:05 am
No Child Left Behind
Clearly, the entire state of Kansas has planned to completely disregard the federally manadated standards of education as delineated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002:
November 9th, 2005 at 10:29 am
I am certainly glad that my children go to Catholic school and therefore don’t have all that religious nonsense cluttering up the science curriculum. In an earlier post Harald Kucharek pointed out the prescience of James Michener writing in the 70’s. I submit that Robert A. Heinlein saw it coming in the 40’s. Read the short story Coventry in the book “Revolt in 2100 & Methuselah’s Children”. May the FSM touch you all with His Noodly Appendage.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:19 am
I can’t wait for the first teacher who instructs his students about the design of the universe by Zeus… or Ptah… or Vishnu… or better yet, Allah, because there’s more than just the concept of ID here. The ID people believe it is the CHRISTIAN IPU that designed the universe. I am quite certain that their heads would explode if a Zeus/Jupiter based concept of ID started being taught.
ID is a weapon being used by fundamentalist Christians - not religious people in general. The whole fight isn’t just about whether or not there is a god of some sort, nor is it just an assault on science. It’s about the primacy of THE GOD according to a particular group of people.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:32 am
I said it before and I say it again:
Keep it fair: If you teach creationism in schools, teach evolution in churches. It’s that simple.
(or, like Evolving Squid said before, teach creationism in a way you know wasn’t intended. Like the creationism from the point of view of another religion, that is, not christianism.)
November 9th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Tom, and others, thank you for doing the research and getting us names and email addresses. With the random exception of a few here and there that think science is attacking Christianity, we are and continue to be, preaching to the choir as it were in this forum. I think it is good it allows the subject to stay for front, lest we forget about it as a true threat.
I encourage everyone to write to these board members and those in the scientific community in Kansas if you know anyone. Especially I would like to encourage those of you who IMO are more eloquent and level headed composers of beautiful arguments, specifically TheBlackCat, Irishman, Maksutov and Grapes.
This is a great opportunity to actually take an action rather than sit here brain dump to a bunch of like minded folks.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Mike said:
“When someone from the ID camp provides a measurable mechanism for an intelligent designer, beyond arguments from ignorance and “God of the gapsâ€? thinking, then I will be all ears. ”
Mike, I think you missed one : ID is also an argument from incredulity.
Evolving Squid - What’s an IPU? Is it anything like a CPU?
If I lived in the States, I would definitely write to or email those people who voted “yes”. For the time being, I’ll save my protests for when ID tries to come to the UK.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
THX-1138: I agree with you that Penn and Teller seem (or, at least their public personas) to be exactly what skeptics SHOULDN’T be. They make skepticism look like a technique to browbeat and humiliate people as being “dumb” for no other reason than to inflate the skeptic’s Ego.
What’s self-defeating about this attitude (while otherwise being psychological dysfunctional) is that it only plays into the hands (and fears) of the “believer” — that skepticism and science are really just a way for one group of people to gain an advantage on another. The probem (IMHO) is that the “believer” (in whatever supernatural idea you care to name) doesn’t see things as a matter of truth or falsehood, but rather in terms of social standing and power. In other words, they treat science as a threat to their position and status in society and not merely as a description of reality.
When skeptics start treating (in a psychological and emotional sense) science as if it was their “religion” they only harm their own cause. Skepticism is a PROCESS, not a belief system.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
It would be much more interesting if we could know why the six Republicans voted to change the definition of science to include “supernatural” explanations (no longer limited to the natural)?
Do they want the public schools to go retro fifties: teacher led Catholic prayers, Holy Bible studies, WASP schools, segregation, etc?
Will they inlcude all the creationist or ID religions in the science curriculum? Will they include all psuedosciences?
From Massimo Pigliucci in Skeptical Inquiry Nov/Dec ‘05: “Science is a complex misture of empiricism (empirical observations) and rationalism (logical/mathematical) truth.”
They will all remain firm in their own religious faiths regardless of the emails from any of us. Let me remind you that we are, in fact, in a cultural power struggle of religious faith based sectarianism vs science/secularism (critical thinking). It is very much fortunate for all of us that it is, for now, a political debate and not an “armed” debate.
Getting slightly off this “ID” topic in order to “prove” to you that Christian faith’s won’t be able to agree on “ID”, they can’t agree on the meaning of the Book of Revelation of St John the Divine’s Chapters 19 and 20!
I, an Atheist (nope, did not change) recently read “Amillennialsim–Understanding the End Times” by Kim Riddlebarger, Pastor of the Christ Reformed Church.
On page 33, Kim wrote: Christians have such diverse opinions and have opposing veiw points. If we acknowledge that the three major millennial views [dispensationalism, premillennialism, or postmillennialism) contradict one another–which interpretation makes the most sense of the biblical data–while all of them may be wrong, not all of them can be right.”
On page 110, “Wherever Christ’s Kingdom advances, Christians must do combat with our three great enemies–the word, the flesh, and the devil.”
Perhaps this is the “key” to emailing those Republicans that voted YES for ID and changing the definition of Science: even Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians can’t agree on their own Eschatological views.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Evolving Squid - What’s an IPU? Is it anything like a CPU?
IPU = Invisible Pink Unicorn
It’s the term I learned long before coming here to see “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, but the sense is the same. It is a non-denominational term representing an unseen, unverifiable, human-defined supernatural being.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
You defile the FSM by mentioning the IPU before Him?? Into the pot with you!!
November 9th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Cindy Says:
I wonder what Kansas would do if top colleges refuse to accept students from Kansas because their science course was not rigorous enough? That would have them change in a hurry.
That would be appropriate (in both the poetic justice and logical sense), at least in universities’ science curricula, if Kansas continues on this path long-term (and other places don’t join them).
November 9th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
THX-1138, those are good points. It’s important for us to keep the discourse civil, on topic, and on the evidence–which is, let’s face it, overwhelmingly in our favor–but only if people can be persuaded to listen to it.
I’m not sure if Penn and Teller are really the worst way for skeptics to be–I do enjoy their show–but I agree that they take it too far over the top. The personal attacks and gratuitous language turn me off. It’s too bad, because they make a lot of good points in between the swear words.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
I would like to see colleges and universities across the US refuse admitance or Kansas high school graduates since they lack the necessary science prerequisites. I plan to write to my alma-mater and recommend that they review their admission standards and not allow credit for any science course that uses creationism or ID.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Not a bad idea, *if* this goes on long-term. We shouldn’t do that sort of thing now, though, since students currently graduating from the Kansas school system aren’t really affected–but if it continues, then the affected years should be identified and graduates from those years not given science credit–at least in biology.
I don’t think it would be appropriate to target any other sciences, unless the ID strategy succeeds in pushing for changes in other disciplines, such as astronomy. We need to be careful about what and how we would target this sort of thing.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
On the contrary of what some creationists yell and shout, it’s not close-minded to say ID is wackiness.
It’s just to realize that NONE of the ID “facts” are facts.
From this moment on now, when I think of Kansas, I’ll only think “what’s wrong with these guys?”
November 9th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Andy Said:
>I am disturbed by the backlash against Christians this causes in those who are rightly opposed to this.
There is a bit of unrestrained lumping going on.
>A person who approaches the issue with both logical reasoning and faith can find easy harmony between science and faith once you understand that they are two entirely diffrent fields of study, that at best have only passing references to eachother, instead of being mutually exclusive.
To some extent, I see what you are saying, and I definitely think that from the science and education standpoint (and specifically on ID), we need to focus on the areas we have in common with many christians and not exclude them unnecessarily. The fight over ID is not between christians and atheists, it is over ideology corrupting science. We need to keep the argument focused on topic.
However, there is a fundamental conflict between the methods and attitude of science versus faith. Faith is about accepting something without evidence - accepting the belief because is sounds good, it’s comforting, it is what you are taught, it would be nice if it were true - any of a dozen reasons that boil down to we don’t have evidence and don’t care, believe anyway. Whereas science is about critical evaluation and testing. You take a claim/belief and subject it to critical review, compare against evidence, evaluate it for flaws, and try to disprove it. It’s only accepted after passing the tests, and then only until a new test can be devised. It is the antithesis of faith, as a mindset or worldview.
So I accept that people can live their lives operating with religion on the one hand and with science on the other. I accept that many are able to live that way without self-conflict. But I don’t agree that religion and science are entirely different. There are times when religious beliefs intrude upon the real world, i.e. they affect people’s actions and lead to interactions with others. When those beliefs become actions that affect others, and those actions have potentially detrimental effects on others, it is important to point out the places where faith and skepticism are at odds, and why faith is not sufficient to justify the effects.
An example: is it fair to let Christian Scientists refuse antibiotics for their children? “Oh, I don’t believe in antibiotics, I’ll just pray to God.” Or Scientologists and their e-meters. If Scientologists had their way, would any of us be allowed antibiotics?
November 9th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
FYI: Kathy Martin is replying to e-mail on this topic. At least, I got a reply.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
I am reminded by Bart’s Comet episode of the Simpsons. At the end of the episdoe, a character says, “Now let’s burn down the observatory so this never happens again!” Great science!
Rob
November 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Irishman:
You are confusing religion with certain religious beliefs. Religion, specifically biblical christianity (as i can’t honestly speak to other religions), is not inherently in conflict with science. Nor is faith what you state it to be.
Faith is not the belief in things hoped for without evidence. “faith is the reality of things being hoped for, the proof of things not being seen”
there is proof of a sorts, but is inherently a personal, internal conviction that can not be proven for others. you might not accept that logic, and you might say that evidence that can not be shown is no evidence at all. then we have reached an impass, for short of experiencing it yourself, there is not much anybody can do to convey it to you.
as for you’re other point, that science and any religion are inherently opposing worldviews: simply put, science is not a worldview. there is no scientific worldview, science is simply the discovery and study of facts about our universe. it does not have opinions, it does pass judgement. a set of opions about the world is what a worldview is, therefore science is not a worldview but a study, two very diffrent things.
a worldview a set of opions with regard to (what is believed by the person to be) fact and based upon personal convctions. For example:
My worldview is Christian-Logical, my convictions are the bible and my personal faith experiences, and my facts are scientific.
of course, it doesn’t break down into neat categories like that, but you get the idea. as another example, yours (might) be:
A Moral-Athiest worldview, convictions are science and logic, and you facts are also scientific.
for the people on this school board, you could say:
Their worldview is Christian-Conservative, their convictions are their interpertations of the bible, and their facts are synonymous with their convictions (an obvious mistake).
now keep in mind i’m not trying to categorize worldviews, convictions, and facts like that, all three of these are far too complicated to fit into a defined category, but i’m just using the example that you can have a religious worldview based on both religious text and a belief in scienctific fact.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Andy says:
> “faith is the reality of things being hoped for, the proof of things not
> being seen�
>
> there is proof of a sorts, but is inherently a personal, internal conviction
> that can not be proven for others. you might not accept that logic, and
> you might say that evidence that can not be shown is no evidence at
> all. then we have reached an impass, for short of experiencing it
> yourself, there is not much anybody can do to convey it to you.
I think we’re getting dangerously close to arguing semantics at this point, but I really don’t see how that idea of proof can be valid. Proof is solid, incontrovertible evidence for or against something–you can’t prove or disprove the existence of any supreme being. That’s quite a different thing from saying such beliefs aren’t true. You can argue convincingly, you can find facts or circumstances that suggest the existence of a deity, but you can’t prove them.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
i didn’t mean “proof” as you usually think of it, like i said, it isn’t really something that can be “proven”
perhaps personal confirmation would be a better term.
and semantics are important here becaus subtle differences like that are very important differences.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Ah, personal confirmation–yes, I can definitely believe that. Makes more sense now.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Andy Says:
November 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
November 9th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Dateline: Kansas;
Finally a ray of sunshine has burst forth in the heartland of Kansas!
Maybe this little fragile ember of hope will finally roar to life and put an end to the death grip that the theory of evolution has had on the education system of WE THE PEOPLE.
It is going to take much more of WE THE PEOPLE to end this illegal and unconstitutional monopoly that evolution has had on our schools, our culture and our society as a whole. Let me be clear here, all I want to see ended is the unconstitutional monopoly that up to now the high tech religion of evolution has enjoyed. Squeal all you want to. Evolution is a high tech religion being foisted on our nation– nothing more, nothing less. Evolution has been forced upon us as an illegally imposed State religion. In spite of all the references to decisions of the courts, there is no direct reference to “The Separation of Church and State in the body of the Constitution, nor in the many Amendments. It simply is not there, which was my point all along. Even the Supreme Court has wandered off from the path it was intended to serve which is defining whether or not something is in the Constitution, instead of creating rulings and edicts to be taken as law. That is for the realm of the Congress, who knows the Constitution as well as the nine elite judges. That is why these appointments are so important, to protect our nation from being held hostage to this high tech religion. Those who try to merge God and evolution together are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I have read that you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, but, God had better behave himself. He better come in through the back door; use the wash room in the back. Speak softly, mind his P’s and Q’s, and bow His knee to the laws of science? Laws that He wrote, and you have only discovered? He is not subject to these laws. That he chooses to operate by them is up to Him and as it serves His purpose and according to His own good will.
Go Kansas State Board of Education! You have made a difficult but correct decision. Now hold fast, don’t be swayed by the high priests and Royal guardsmen of the high tech religion of Evolution. They will test your metal. They will blow hard on your door. But hold on, because these priests and guardsmen are blow hards!
November 9th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Leon said:
> THX-1138, those are good points.
Just sharing the empirical observations of 25 years of active skepticism (starting at age 15).
> It’s important for us to keep the discourse civil, on topic,
> and on the evidence–which is, let’s face it, overwhelmingly
> in our favor–but only if people can be persuaded to listen to it.
As far as I am concerned, any other approach would be unscientific.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
…Ed, you’re being sarcastic right?
If you’re not, I would like to ask you a few questions:
1. Why do you feel evolution is a religion? What is its major deity? What are its beliefs and morals? Does it have any sacred texts? Where is this belief practiced?
2. When exactly HAS the Supreme Court made a law?
November 9th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
don’t feed the troll, he was being sarcastic anyway. even so, pushing the argument to the extremes like that does nobody any good.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson
This was not originally the idea of the Supreme Court, they are using Thomas Jefferson’s own terminology.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
To THX-1138 regarding
“1. The histrionics do not work. Comparing people to the Taliban is only going to drive them deeper into their own camps. I *know* a woman who experience the real Taliban first hand. She’d probably slap you for trivializing what they were with such a comparison.”
I wrote “Talibanesque”, a usage then means “similar to the Taliban”, not identical. Read the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Strategy (the CRSC is a program started by the Discovery Institute in 1996) and then tell me there’s no similarity between the Taliban’s goals and that of the Discovery Institute, and thus by diffusion, IDers in general. The Discovery Institute wants to start the process by the corruption of science education and then complete it with a step-by-step general overhaul and taking over of American society and government. This kind of takeover of a country by a religious group is called a theocracy, which is precisely what the Taliban established in Afghanistan. Hence the use of the word “Talibanesque”: different methods, similar goals.
More information on the Discovery Institute, the CRSC, the people who operate and support them, and the lies they promote, may be found here.
I would advise you to please get the chip off your shoulder and drop the rhetoric. The members of these groups are already so deep into their own camps that nothing, especially things they consider trivial and non-applicable such as reason, logic, and objective evidence, is going to change their minds. The kid gloves method won’t work with these groups. These people are dogmatic, dangerous and cannot be treated lightly.
Re the woman you *know* slapping me, I’m sure that would prove me wrong and change my mind.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:31 am
I live in Kansas, unfortunately, don’t have the ability to move just yet, but am planning to.
Kansas will never catch up to the rest of the world. Most Kansasans are older strict Christian’s (or other religous faiths). Most of which believe in ID, they elect people (pay them to run more or less) who have the same beliefs. I have a young daughter (5 mos), she will NOT go to school here. They don’t urge children, especially young ladies to pursue science careers. Trust me, its not just the school board but the residents as well.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:33 am
It’s simply blasphemous to suggest that Zeus had anything to do with the creation of humans. We are the creatures of Prometheus.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:36 am
“Talibanesqueâ€? works for me. Evolution is my “Buddhas of Bamiyan”.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:52 am
Quote:
bad Jim (on November 10th, 2005 at 1:33 am) wrote:
It’s simply blasphemous to suggest that Zeus had anything to do with the creation of humans. We are the creatures of Prometheus.
Heck, even a great genius like Beethoven recognized this, hence his music Die Geschöpfe des Prometheus (The Creatures of Prometheus).
It’s a lot better experience than listening to the resonances caused by the methane emissions produced by the Preachers of Crimetheus (i.e., the IDers). It’s best to avoid and take measures against such flatulence P.D.Q.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Maksutov said
> I would advise you to please get the chip off your shoulder and
> drop the rhetoric.
What chip? What are you talking about? I offered my opinion calmly and based on decades of skeptical experience. You can disagree or not- I don’t really care- but don’t try to imply some sort of belligerance because I don’t toe your line.
> The kid gloves method won’t work with these groups.
That’s sort of my point, too. NOTHING is going to work with them, and using the verbal equivalent of shock & awe is just going to push the much larger, non-hard core folks into the other camp. In the name of a pointless effort to convert the deep level ldeologues you are going to sacrifice everything else. Hmm. Where have I heard that before?
> Re the woman you *know* slapping me, I’m sure that would prove
> me wrong and change my mind.
Oh for pity’s sake… The implication was just that she would be greatly offended, that tossing about such terms trivializes things that has destroyed lives FAR beyond what the dolts in Kansas have accomplished to date. I had a college professor who was also a Holocaust survivor who felt the same way when people made trivial Nazi comparisons.
Look, you do what you think you have to do. Have fun when it fails, like it always does.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:27 am
It’s simply blasphemous to suggest that Zeus had anything to do with the creation of humans. We are the creatures of Prometheus.
True. Zeus didn’t even create the universe… That was sort of Eurynome+Ophion+Chaos+Oceanus IIRC.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:10 am
WHo’s right and who’s wrong is irrelevant to this debate. Me? I’m an atheist and a scientist, but that’s not relevant either. The issue to me is that this is unconstitutional, no matter how you slice it.
Teaching religion in school CLEARLY crosses the line between the separation of church and state. Religion is for church, school is for knowledge. To mandate the teaching of this absurd, dogmatic crap defies the very ideals that this country was founded on.
While we’re at it, is there a separation of church and state if churches don’t pay taxes?
November 10th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Ed, the phrase is “test your mettle”, not “metal”. At least get your idioms right.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Maksutov and THX-1138…
I agree with THX-1138: we need to be careful to be civil and avoid mudslinging. It’s true we need to take off the gloves, but that means taking on ID/creationism rather than ignoring it; it doesn’t mean risking alienating those in the middle we hope to convince. They’re our natural allies on this one anyway, since we’re on the side of being sensible and our opponents are extremist.
November 10th, 2005 at 11:27 am
November 10th, 2005 at 11:28 am
I suppose it is long past time then we concede. Now the only thing to do is continue along the logical path and introduce alchemy into chemistry classes. The periodic table has held an unfair and unworthy monopoly on chemistry way too long. I move we push forward to allow the alternative view points in chemistry, and introduce alchemy to our children, to the other side of the argument. This notion of atoms and protons and such has been forced upon us with no alternative for too long.
It is also disturbing how there is no mention of the mystic power of crystals in mineralogy, and geology classes. Think of the children. There has been too long, a strangle hold on the notion that crystals are nothing more than a pretty high temperature precipitates. There should be in every earth science, or geology class, presented the alternative view of powerful crystals and the influences they can have over a persons life.
This notion that the planets and stars don’t have predictive influence over our lives needs to be addressed as well. If the stars and planets did not have influence over our lives why else are they there. My daily horoscope no longer belongs hidden in the entertainment section of my paper, the signs of the zodiac should be taught in every astronomy class. Our children must be exposed to the complete teachings of all sides of an argument.
The medical community is especially bad about hiding their methods and keeping the rest of the world away from advancing their cause. The ancient and respected art of spell making shall no longer be kept for medical teaching. This needs to start younger so our school children with the dreams of becoming doctors and nurses can have both sides of this logical argument taught to them. Spell making should be introduced into general science classes so that our students will understand and can make their own decisions. The closed minded zealots of modern medicine must be forced into submission; and the doors have been opened by the obviously free thinking Kansas school board being the first step.
Go get’em FSM
November 10th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Hugh Jass:
I salute you,
I’M NOT WORTHY….
I’M NOT WORTHY….
I’M NOT WORTHY….
You hit the nail on the head.
If we introduce Psychokinesis into the carpenter trade, they won’t need hammers.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Andy Said:
>You are confusing religion with certain religious beliefs. Religion, specifically biblical christianity (as i can’t honestly speak to other religions), is not inherently in conflict with science.
I am speaking about both religion in general (as a mindset or approach) as well as religious beliefs. The mindset sets the stage, the beliefs shape actions. The beliefs require the mindset. I think that the religious mindset is at odds with the scientific methodology.
>Faith is not the belief in things hoped for without evidence. “faith is the reality of things being hoped for, the proof of things not being seen�
I’m not sure where you got that definition for “faith�, but it does not match any definition with which I am familiar. I’m not even sure that definition makes any sense. Reality of things being hoped for? Proof of things not seen?
>there is proof of a sorts, but is inherently a personal, internal conviction that can not be proven for others. you might not accept that logic, and you might say that evidence that can not be shown is no evidence at all. then we have reached an impass, for short of experiencing it yourself, there is not much anybody can do to convey it to you.
I accept there are experiences and such which cannot be proven objectively but are nevertheless experienced. Experiences are difficult to share after the fact.
I submit that the interpretations of those experiences and the explanations for the cause of those experiences is where the dispute lies.
>as for you’re other point, that science and any religion are inherently opposing worldviews: simply put, science is not a worldview. there is no scientific worldview, science is simply the discovery and study of facts about our universe. it does not have opinions, it does pass judgement. a set of opions about the world is what a worldview is, therefore science is not a worldview but a study, two very diffrent things.
I was struggling for the right terminology. A more correct phrasing than “worldview� would be “approach� or “methodology�. Science and faith are opposing methodologies. Or should that be skepticism and faith? One is testing and evaluating, the other is accepting at face value.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Hugh Jass Says:
The periodic table has held an unfair and unworthy monopoly on chemistry way too long.
Indeed! Why do the Mendeleevians insist on obscuring the truth with their 100+ elements when it’s plain to see that all things are made from the Four Elements? We disrespect God’s Creation by ignoring the plain truth that He created earth, air, fire, and water.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Andy Said:
>and no, creationism has nothing to do with man being at the center of everything “no matter how you dress it up�
>nowhere in the bible does it state that mankind is the center of anything, either metaphorically or physically, with respect to the universe.
This is very much getting into interpretations and assumptions rather than explicit statements. I will assume we’re not taking a literalistic interpretation and will allow for turns of phrase or figures of speech without expecting them to be “accurate descriptions”. Even then, the Bible is describing the situation thusly: God exists, in heaven. There are angels and such, but God sets out to create the cosmos, the entirety of the universe. This is merely to serve as a backdrop, and foundation for the creation of one particular planet - Earth. He then shapes and manipulates this one planet (out of all the kazillion others out there) so that it has oceans and land, breathable air, day and night, animals and plants. All of this is merely as a placemat, an environment. And then he creates humanity, his crowing achievement, the pinnacle of his intent. Humans are made in God’s image, and given dominion over the Earth and everything in it. Humans rule the Earth, and when they die, their souls are taken to Heaven to be with God for eternity. Well, if they’re good, anyway.
Then humanity promptly falls from grace, and sin is introduced to the world. No matter, first comes a series of prophets and covenants, followed by the “ultimate sacrifice”, god takes human form as his own son and then subjects himself/his son to torture, death, and trial in hell, all to suffer for humanity’s wrongdoings so we mere mortals don’t have to.
See? Humans given dominion over Earth. Humans have souls that get to go to Heaven. Humans are worth the sacrifice and suffering of God’s own son in their place. Sounds to me like mankind is the center of everything.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Oops, just found this previous response:
Andy Said:
>what we are not at the center of the universe, which the bible does not claim.
>you should understand the difference between the earth and the universe.
Which post stated that the Bible or Creationism claims humans (Earth) is the center of the universe? What Blake Stacey said was that humanity is the central purpose for the universe, not the physical center.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Thomas Siefert Said:
>In the environment we have created for ourselves we are no longer evolving, we have to rely on our intelligence and technology to survive.
This is not quite true - we are still evolving. We are just countering many of the historical weakenesses upon which natural selection would act, such as poor eyesight. However, the act of preventing them from being weeded out is also evolution - retaining those traits in the gene pool. Plus, natural selection is not the only process of evolution, it is just the key one for giving the changes a consistent direction. There is still mutation and recombination providing for variety and new traits.
November 10th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
• Leon Says:
November 10th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Ed, the phrase is “test your mettle�, not “metal�. At least get your idioms right.
Alas! I missed it, spell check, grammar check, and my wife who proof read this for me missed it as well. Thanks for setting me straight. I think we can agree on this point. : )
November 10th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Irony abounds.
Today, Pat Robertson said that a vote against ID is a vote against God. Wow, what people will believe!
However, the irony I refer to is this - MSNBC had a poll asking if we think Robertson is right in saying this or not. Once I voted (”It’s pure idiocy!”), they show the results so far, and at the bottom of the screen, it says,”Not a scientifically valid survey.”
I suppose they are using the definition of “scientific” as it used to be, before the IDiots redefined it.
By the way, after 5810 votes, 80% claim it is “pure idiocy.”
Of course, only liberals read what’s posted on MSNBC!
November 10th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
To be more specific about what Pat Robertson said, MSNBC reports:
“Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting “intelligent designâ€? and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
““I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city,â€? Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.â€?
“And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there,â€? he said.”
This world may be doomed, but I doubt it’s because the school board changed in Dover.
November 10th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
• Samara Says:
November 9th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
…Ed, you’re being sarcastic right?
No.
If you’re not, I would like to ask you a few questions:
1. Why do you feel evolution is a religion? Because it presumes to take the place of Religion. It attempts to answer the fundamental questions, like who are we, were did we come from, etc. Traditionally areas of faith.
What is its major deity?
It doesn’t seem to have one, unless you count the good old FSM.
What are its beliefs and morals?
Naturalistic Darwinism.
Does it have any sacred texts?
“The Origin of the species�
Where is this belief practiced?
Unfortunately it is practiced, or proselytized in our schools and Universities.
2. When exactly HAS the Supreme Court made a law?
It actually has not made any laws, but the decisions of the court have come to be considered law like Roe vs. Wade has been referred to as the settled law of the land.
This type of power needs to be curtailed as it was never given to the courts by the Constitution.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
• TheBlackCat Says:
November 9th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,� thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson
This was not originally the idea of the Supreme Court, they are using Thomas Jefferson’s own terminology.
Nice try, however you should read the entire letter that Jefferson wrote, and this is still not in the body, nor in the Amendments of the document called the US Constitution.
It is simply Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on an issue expressed in a letter. It is not the law of the land.
I want to state clearly that I do not want anyone’s beliefs imposed on any body, mine included. I would rejoice if every skeptic on this site, including Phil got saved and filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. However I do not believe in, nor do I condone forced conversions. They are like shot gun weddings, it usually doen’t work. They might learn to love you, but more than likely they will look for a way to escape back home to Mom and Dad. I am just as opposed to forced or coerced conversions as you are. I just want a fair place at the table. Nothing more, nothing less.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Um… Ed, I have a question. Let me paraphrase your post. ‘Evolution… Unconstitutional… High Tech State Religion. Blah Blah Blah… ‘Creation should be taught in science classes, because The Constitution does not say separation of church and state…’
So which is it? Is Evolution, because its a High Tech Religion, Unconstitutional? Or is it ok to teach Creationism because the Constitution does not really make a separation of church and state?
November 10th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Unfortunately it is practiced, or proselytized in our schools and Universities.
Perhaps that is because academic institutions are for teaching critical thinking based on analysis of evidence and facts.
If one wants to learn about some god, one goes to the appropriate church - which is an institution amply more suitable to the teaching of faiths and beliefs in things unverifiable, untestable and indeed, intangible.
Nobody has been trying to prevent a religious parent from teaching whatever religious beliefs they wish to pass to their children. What people want to prevent is the state-sanctioned teaching of those beliefs to all children, and a state-sanctioned equivalence of those beliefs to science.
Faith != Science
It’s really that simple. Evolution or Intelligent Design really isn’t the issue. The crux of the matter is that faith is inherently not scientific BY DEFINITION. Changing the definition perverts science. Actually, it perverts faith too.
Complicating the issue further, if one is willing to say that faith = science, then it is reasonable to conclude that ANY faith=science. To conclude otherwise would imply that some faiths are better than others, and the scientific method would require proof of such an assumption (and such proof cannot start with “my faith tells me that it is the true faith” since all faiths say that). So not only would one consider Christian explanations to be scientific, but so would Muslim, Wiccan, Ancient Greek, Ancient Roman, Ancient Egyptian, Hindu, Shinto, and other explanations.
Are you prepared to have Wicca held up as an equally valid explanation for phenomena as you are the Christian explanation? Are you prepared to give equal time to the origin of man as taught in the Qu’ran as you are to what is taught in the Bible? These are the questions that the “alternate explanation / faith = science” people should be asking.
The REAL winner in the faith versus science debate are the Scientologists. They have detailed pseudoscience explanations for a lot of modern theories and hypotheses. Are the anti-evolutionists prepared to have Dianetics in the science class as an alternate explanation ?
This is the can of worms that has been opened. Think hard on it.
November 10th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
“Because it presumes to take the place of Religion. It attempts to answer the fundamental questions, like who are we, were did we come from, etc. Traditionally areas of faith.”
It doesn’t presume to take the place of religion at all. There are plenty of people who don’t find it the least bit conflicting with religion. Religion is based on faith and faith alone. Science is based on evidence and logic alone. They are completely different. Evolution is no different than any science in this regard. If you are going to ban the teaching of evolution because it is religion, then you would have to ban the teaching of all science of any kind, as well as the teaching of history, psychology, sociology, mathematics, and just about everything besides literature.
First of all, “fundamental question” is entirely subjective. There is no such thing in science. Every branch of science tries to answer the questions that fall under that branch. Evolution makes no claim about who we are. There have been lots of non-religiouns that have made claims about where we came from. The fact that it answers a few questions people think are important does not automatically make it a religion. Religions have answers to question, but those answers are expected to be taken solely on faith with absolutely no supporting evidence and no question. Science answers the questions by looking at the answers that exist in our world. The answers do not come from evolution, or science, they come from the world itself, they are not just answers, they are the answers as nature has shown them to us. Science is simply the way to find those answers. We find them using evidence, logic, and mathematics. They are not accepted on faith, they are accepted on the weight of the evidence supplied to us by nature. Evdience vs faith is ultimately what seperates science and religion. Science has evidence and no faith, religion has faith and no evidence.
What is its major deity?
It doesn’t seem to have one, unless you count the good old FSM.
Hopefully you are kidding about the FSM.
What are its beliefs and morals?
Naturalistic Darwinism.
This isn’t a BELIEF, it is a logical conclusion drawn from nature. There is a difference. Belief is what you have in the absence of evidence. Science is what you have with lots of evidence to back up your idea. When it is well-supported by the evidence, it is no longer a belief. More on the importance of Darwinism in a moment.
Does it have any sacred texts?
“The Origin of the species�
“The Origin of Species” is NOT a sacred text. A sacred text is dogma, it is the center of the religion that defines the beliefs and practices of that religion. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc, these are sacred books. “The Origin of Species” is not sacred. In fact, it is not of particular importance to evolution anymore. Most creationists seem to not realize that a lot has happened in evolutionary theory since Darwin wrote his book. The book had a number of theoretical flaws that have henceforth been corrected. It has also been found that Darwinian natural selection is but one of several different evolutionary mechanisms. “The Origin of Species” is an interesting look at the starting point for modern evolutionary theory, but I have never heard of any modern course in evolutionary biology requiring, or even suggesting, people read “The Origin of Species” because it is hopelessly outdated and of little real value anymore from a scientific standpoint. Nowadays people study science textbooks which give a modern look at how evolution works. On the other hand, I would like to see a Christian group tell its followers to ignore the bible, that it is hopelessly outdated and of no real practical value to todays world. Yet the bible is well over ten times older than “The Origin of Species”. Creationist look at evolution as if it is a religion similar to theirs, they need to find a “prophet” who all the people follow (they target Darwin), the need to find a book that outlines the belief system (they target “The Origin of Species”). What they fail to realize is that these are not the end-all and be-all of evolution, unlike religion the people and books who discover and describe the theory are respected for doing an impressive feat, there is not a single theory today that is completely unchanged from when it was first proposed, and these original works soon are little more than the foundation on which a massive collection of theories and laws are built, the original work and author take on a purely historical importance.
Where is this belief practiced?
Unfortunately it is practiced, or proselytized in our schools and Universities.
So you are saying anything taught in a school is automatically a religion? If so, then we better get rid of the entire US public education system right away so we don’t violate the constitution. If not, then this statement is of no significance. Where are the churches of evolution? Where are the holy sites where the faithful take pilgrimages to? Religion is taught in private school, but so is literature, history, mathematics, and science. But where are the places dedicated to only the worship of evolution and nothing else? That is what churches are for in terms of Christianity (primarily), but schools teach a great many things besides evolution. Where is the equivalent of Christian churches for evolution?
And the statements of Thomas Jefferson IS of importance to the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. He was instrumental in the writing of the Bill of Rights, his statements are useful for determing the founding fathers’ intent when they wrote that amendment.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:47 am
This has very little to do with mainstream Christianity, it is however a gimmick of those who are basically not very smart. It is a tool of the anti-intellectual soul who believes that science is the epitomy of evil.
I’ve been told that the great Catholic Saint Augustine wrote about this about 1600 or so years ago…the literal interpretation of the Old Testament.
Catholics have a great tradition in the Jesuit Fathers of teaching just look up Brother Guy, the Vatican Astronomer and you will find a nice interview in which he details this.
If one believes in God, whether in the form of the God of Abraham, Issac & Jacob, or in the form of the Christian Trinity…God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit, you believe that he creates and powers the Universe.
Science, as I have said many times, is just the use of our brains to ask questions of the Universe that we live in.
If one believes in God, that when he created the Universe he “….saw that it was good” should realize that the Study of the Universe that he created cannot be anything but good.
To deny this, is really a slap in the face of the creator……
November 11th, 2005 at 5:56 am
So you are saying anything taught in a school is automatically a religion? If so, then we better get rid of the entire US public education system right away so we don’t violate the constitution.
It has always been my impression that there is a certain group of people… a cabal, if you will, that believe and want exactly that. The cabal of my theory happen, by coincidence, to all be Christian fundamentalists. Rarely do I voice this, because it’s kind of a far-out opinion, but occasionally there is evidence to support the idea.
Right now in Kansas and in Pennsylvania, we’re seeing that evidence.
November 11th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Pat Robertson said:
“God is tolerant and loving, but we can’t keep sticking our finger in his eye forever,” Robertson said. “If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them.”
Since evolution is based on SCIENCE and ID is based on FAITH, and medicine is based on SCIENCE, then I suggest Pat throw out any medications he’s taking and go visit his local faith healing quack for all present and future health issues.
Anyone see “The Daily Show” last night with the Cristian Science version of CPR?
-Tom
November 11th, 2005 at 10:09 am
You know what the real problem is here? That anything that speaks about origins that is NOT evolution is attacked, and frankly treated as heresy. What happend to the concept of debate? Why is science being decided in a court room, or legistrative session?
There are wackos on every side of this debate, but your only considered a wacko if you do not agree with the holy grail of mondern culture, “Evolution”.
If we are going to be honest, there is a lot of problems with the concept of Evolution, and it does not perfectly explain the origins of life. Thus leaves room for new research, and in normal fields of science would allow room for new theroies to be crafted. BUT not in this area, in this area you either work to prove evolution or your an oucast. That is not science, not good science at least.
Many are the accepted theroies that have been disproven and forgotten, but whenever one is at the center of a culture, the culture rebles against any attack on it. Such is the case here.
I have read some of the research behind ID arguement, and while some of it is clearly wrong, alot of it does present very good points, that are sound and unexplainable by any current “popular” theroy, least of all Evolution.
I do not blindly accept any theroy, esply one like Evolution that is much more politics then science at this stage. Comon Descent is clearly correct, but can only take you back so far.
Its a shame that the good ppl that are in the ID camp are being over shadowed by the policits and extremeists, because alot of good work is being done there that is endanger of being lost.
Think on this, given the nature of this site I bet alot of you are familure with SETI, and how it works. One thing that the SETI folks have to do is determine wether or not a signal from space is random noise, or INTELIGENTLY DESIGNED. They have a methodogly for that. No one calls them wackos for using it, yet if you apply the same thought proccess to the orgin of life, you are a wacko. Many fields of science do the same… but only in this one area, this one highly polictical and emotionaly controled area is it considered extremist, stupid, etc.
The real question for you to think on, is WHY? Why is doing reseach in to theroies other then Evolution so hotly contested? Why is there so much fear an anger in the Evolution camp? No one ever talks about it, but we all see it. Walk into any Evolutionist classroom, and do somthing all scientist should with any theroy… QUESTION the theroy of evolution, and watch the sparks fly. See if your not branded an heretic and insulted… for what? For being a responsible scientist.
November 11th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Perhaps I am mistaken, but the Theory of Evolution isn’t about the origins of life, it’s about the differentiation of species.
Biogenesis is another topic altogether.
This seems to be the fundamental mistake that anti-evolution forces make.
November 11th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Why is doing reseach in to theroies other then Evolution so hotly contested?
To the best of my knowledge, other theories are not hotly contested. What you see as hot contesting is repudiation of unscientific hypotheses. There’s a difference between contesting a theory and repudiating an inherently unscientific process.
If it can be said that there is anger in the Evolution camp it’s because the camp is under attack - not from other scientists, but from people who would apply unscientific means to attempt to repudiate evolution. They do this, in my opinion, not because the theory is illogical, not because the theory doesn’t adequately explain the available evidence, but simply because it bothers them that they were not created in the image of a deity but rather evolved from some ancient proto-ape. There are other non-ID hypotheses regarding the differentiation of species (seriously, Google it up for yourself) but those hypotheses fail when tested in a scientific way.
Deity-based arguments such as ID require faith. Faith is unscientific. Therefore ID is unscientific. QED.
When the ID community can come up with a scientific hypothesis, and subject the hypothesis to testing, and the hypothesis passes with repeatable results and verifiable evidence, then ID may well supplant current thinking on biogenesis and the Theory of Evolution. However, as long as ID insists on an unscientific premise and ignoring the plethora of available evidence, people will say that ID is unscientific. It’s not an attack, it’s fact. If ID is such a good “theory” it should be a simple matter to demonstrate its correctness in a scientific way. I challenge you to do so. You will become a very rich man.
Note that I didn’t say “faith is wrong”, merely that it is unscientific. It is an unshakable truth that faith is unscientific as is intuition, gut feelings, and so forth.
November 11th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
You’re not mistaken. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, just its development. The origin is a separate question altogether. Creationists & IDers confuse the two because their ideas answer both questions and they assume evolution does the same.
NotAFish, attacks on evolution get such a hot reaction because the theory is very, very well supported by the evidence, yet it’s currently under siege by unscientific people for unscientific reasons–that’s why people are so sensitive about it. Religious people are attacking one of the cornerstones of modern science not based on the evidence, but on their already-established beliefs.
Evolution is not a theory in crisis–the overwhelming weight of evidence supports it. Now the thing is, if you (or someone else) came up with a hypothesis that was based just as strongly on the available evidence, and explained it even better than evolution does, that would open a legitimate dialogue in the scientific community.
But the ID crowd’s arguement is basically that “I can’t imagine that all of this came about through millions of years of trial and error on the part of nature…and neither can you…so it’s obvious that evolution did not occur.” That’s an arguement from ignorance, not evidence.
About the thing with SETI–no one argues that, if I built, say, a doghouse, it wouldn’t be intelligently designed (unless perhaps they saw the gruesome results of my attempts at carpentry). Yes, intelligent beings (humans, aliens perhaps) do exist. So what? SETI isn’t looking for signals from a creator being. It’s looking for signals from another civilization–that’s naturalistic, not supernatural. Accepting the ideas of SETI isn’t a contradiction of acceptance of evolution, any more than learning a new language is a contradiction of a belief that languages evolve over time.
It’s important to make a distinction on this whole issue. Evolution states that organisms change over time to adapt to their environment. Now there may be a creator at work behind the scenes, causing those changes to take place. Evolution ONLY addresses the mechanism for the change; it doesn’t say there isn’t a supreme being behind it all. Those are separate questions, and ID is trying very hard to confuse the two.
November 11th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Evolution does not, never has, and by the current state of the theory of evolution, will it try to make ANY claim as to explaining the origin of life. There are MANY evolutionary biologists, micro biologists, physiological chemists, and on and on, that currently and until a good answer is found DEBATE the origins of life. Evolution is an explanation for the Diversity of organisms only.
Come up with a good alternative theory, one based on evidence and science. You will be welcomed into civil debate. Come up with a theory that debates evolution as it really is. Don’t bring me papers written for no other purpose than to say see because I misinterpreted someone’s research evolution doesn’t work. Bring me an ALTERNATE theory. One that explains in as much detail as evolution the diversity of organisms, then back that up. I don’t care to here arguments about why you think evolution is wrong. I want to here arguments as to why your theory is correct.
Evolution is not political. The defense of evolution as good science is turned political BY the attack upon it that is clearly political in nature.
I have also read many of the ID arguments, and many are not CLEARLY wrong, but are wrong none the less. They most often cite bad evidence and misquote evolutionary biologists or draw inaccurate conclusions based on half-truths. Do some IN DEPTH research on both sides of your debate.
As far as ID being overshadowed by extremists, the extremists are the ones doing the “research”. The extremists are the ones putting it out there so the good people of simple faith who would like to be rational are subdued into thinking there is legitimate scientific place for it.
So have you ever walked into a biology class room and questioned evolution? Sparks may fly if you attack it, but not question it. You will be asked to give your EVIDENCE in support of your claim. If you have any they will attempt to refute your argument with their EVIDENCE. If you have none they will say “then go get some and stop wasting my time.”
Evidence does NOT mean, “Look how complex this biologic system is it makes no sense that it was just random chance!” Makes no sense to who? Evidence is NOT “I don’t see any transitional fossils so this creature was created as we see it today.”
So go do your research on alternate theories. Please you’re right that is what good scientists do. But the conclusion should not be God did it, and made prior to starting your research. And in doing your research look for SUPPORT for YOUR theory. Currently ALL research i’ve seen from the ID camp is done for the sole purpose of saying evolution is wrong. That is not evidence of a new theory.
My previous post about introducing Alchemy, Crystalwhateveritwouldbe, Astrology, and spell making into science classes was of course satirical, and inflammatory, but the point is in reality, there is as little science behind them, and as little place in a science classroom as ID.
As far as relating ID to SETI? Fine go in that direction. Take SETI as a base model and go do your research to find the Designer. This has nothing to do with evolution. When you find the SCIENTIFIC evidence you are looking for come back. It will turn the scientific community on end, but you will be surprised by the number of truly happy hard core scientists there will be. Not all evolutionists are atheists, in fact by the strict definition atheists might be in the minority (that one is pulled outta my hat but I think I might be right).
November 11th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Hi, all. Looks like I’m a bit late coming to this debate.
First off - Black Cat, I’m with you all the way on that comment.
Second, NotAFish, when you say
“You know what the real problem is here? That anything that speaks about origins that is NOT evolution is attacked, and frankly treated as heresy. What happend to the concept of debate? Why is science being decided in a court room, or legistrative session?”
I must disagree. As has been ponted out, Evolutionary Theory is not about origins, it is about diversity. BUT, any attack on Evolutionary Theory is going up against one of the best-supported scientific theories that we humans have. I’ll say that again : best-supported theory. This means supported by evidence, experimentation, testing, observation, withstanding scientific challenges and more.
Since Darwin wrote his magnum opus 150 years ago (give or take a little), the theory has been modified to take account of new understanding of the mechanisms that can lead to speciation, but the basic ideas are still sound. Variation within species exists. That variation is heritable. Not all members of a species are equally successful in passing their genes to the next generation. Species have changed over time (lots of it). Creatures once lived that are now extinct.
The thing is, evolution has been debated. Extensively. And all the evidence to date indicates that it is either completely correct or pretty close to the truth.
Remember also that science has more stringent requirements for evidence than a court of law (no court of law that I’ve ever heard of requires evidence to be reproducible).
Furthermore, NotAFish says
“If we are going to be honest, there is a lot of problems with the concept of Evolution, and it does not perfectly explain the origins of life. Thus leaves room for new research, and in normal fields of science would allow room for new theroies to be crafted. BUT not in this area, in this area you either work to prove evolution or your an oucast. That is not science, not good science at least.”
Here you demonstrate your ignorance of both evolutionary theory and the way modern science progresses. You are the one who is sounding dogmatic.
And, BTW, there are several groups conducting research into abiogenesis (which is a separate issue from evolutionary theory).
Leon said:
“But the ID crowd’s arguement is basically that “I can’t imagine that all of this came about through millions of years of trial and error on the part of nature…and neither can you…so it’s obvious that evolution did not occur.â€? That’s an arguement from ignorance, not evidence.”
Sorry to be pedantic, Leon, but the ID-ers’ argument is from incredulity, to give their particular logical fallacy its correct name. This means, in essence, “I can’t imagine how it could have occurred naturally and I therefore choose not to believe tyhat it could have occurred naturally. Therefore, the Designer, etc.”
Otherwise, Leon, I’m fully with you there. Also, Evolving Squid and Hugh Jass (not your real name, I hope?!) - good points, well made.
What astonishes me is that the field of Christian apologetics exists at all. Christianity is suposed to be based on faith, isn’t it? But proof denies faith, so without faith, Christianity is nothing. Are these people really so insecure in their faith that they need proof?
BTW, if you look in any dictionary, faith is defined as “belief in the absence of evidence” or something very similar.
Hugh also said:
“And in doing your research look for SUPPORT for YOUR theory. Currently ALL research i’ve seen from the ID camp is done for the sole purpose of saying evolution is wrong. That is not evidence of a new theory.”
To extend this point, the best science distinguishes one theory from several others. So if, for the sake of argument, you had theories A, B, C, D and E to explain phenomenon X, the best experimenters would focus on the aspects of theories A - E that distinguish them from one another and then design experiments that would rule out one or several of them, or would find a result or take a measurement, the value of which only one or two of the theories predict.
Finally (I know I’ve rambled a bit, but I’m very tired, it’s been a hard week and I think I deserve a couple of beers on a Friday evening), the theory of evolution is not something that was just invented. The evidence leads us to it. If Darwin had not published On the Origin of Species, someone else, sooner or later, would have come up with exactly the same idea, because it is the only logical and reasonable explanation of the evidence we find.
Thank you, and good night.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Nigel Depledge Says:
November 11th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
“What astonishes me is that the field of Christian apologetics exists at all. Christianity is supposed to be based on faith, isn’t it? But proof denies faith, so without faith, Christianity is nothing. Are these people really so insecure in their faith that they need proof?�
This is actually just like my comment about evolution not being political, but a response by the scientific community. “These” people aren’t insecure in their faith to need proof, “we” are, and continually remind them of it. The reason the Christian apologetics exist at all is in their constant quest to reach out and spread their faith (a central theme in most religions) they ran into a whole group of folks that need extra work; us. It is done from a standpoint of goodness.
Basically if you found a particularly good restaurant, you’d probably tell your friends about it right? Well what if rather than a restaurant you found eternal salvation, and according to the teachings of that eternal salvation everyone on the planet was your friend? Take the next logical step from there. Normally I don’t have any objections to this way of thinking. But it can cross a line, where telling me about it and forcing it upon me get a little blurry, and whole heartedly rejecting my views when they are misinterpreted to conflict with theirs upsets me.
No it’s not my real name, I’m immature, often hot tempered and don’t mind admitting that.
November 11th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Nigel Depledge says:
Sorry to be pedantic, Leon, but the ID-ers’ argument is from incredulity, to give their particular logical fallacy its correct name. This means, in essence, “I can’t imagine how it could have occurred naturally and I therefore choose not to believe tyhat it could have occurred naturally. Therefore, the Designer, etc.�
Yes, that’s it. Got the wrong word in my brain as I typed. A Freudian slip, I suppose (and an unfortunate one–I don’t want to insinuate that someone who disagrees with me is ignorant).
November 11th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
Hugh Jass says:
No it’s not my real name, I’m immature, often hot tempered and don’t mind admitting that.
And a fellow Simpsons fan, I presume. Go science–in your face, Flanders!!