Intelligent Design/Creationism/whatever is not science. It cannot be tested, let alone be falsified or replicated. It makes no predictions. It does not unify the study of biology. Any attempt to teach it as science cheats children of an evidence-based understanding of the world around them and the current state of scientific understanding and undermines the attempts of the school system to teach critical thought.

Now, if you want to hold ID up in the classroom as a culturally relevant example of what science is not, that is acceptable. However, this is not what you, or any other ID proponent wants. You want Intelligent Design to be taught in the science classroom as a legitimate topic of study - which sounds nice, but instead undermines the educational process, as well as the First Amendment rights of every person in that classroom.

As for the rest of Ben's bogus claims against evolution (which he calls Darwinism, even though biology's understanding of evolution moved past those of Darwin's original theory over a century ago), go check them out yourself at the Index to Creationist Claims: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html I won't waste your time or mine debunking each individually, since it's been done so many times before.

Posted by TheSquire on November 7, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Honestly, and no doubt surprisingly to

some, I don't want religion taught in

schools-not my religion, or yours.

This is about science, and the freedom

of ideas.

And surprisingly to most, I feel it is vital to teach religion in schools. I want every religious holiday of which there is a student that celebrates it observed in the classroom and studied -- show and tell style. What better way is there to understand each other, and how similar our belief systems are, and also to further understand the radical militants of other religions than to contrast and compare them to the Kristianity based Klan sheetheads and the chivalrous knights of the Holy Crusades?

Blaming the theory of evolution for the holocaust is as nutz as blaming Christ for the Crusades and more recently the work of the Klukkers.

Scientists have good reason to fight against religion disguised as science: Back in the heyday of belief in the dogma of Intelligent Design, the earth was flat, and the sun (and everything else) revolved around the earth. Anyone who thought differently suffered the inquisition. You know nothing of persecution -- ask Galileo.

Posted by dw on November 7, 2007 at 11:21 PM

You forget, dw, that Creationists love to claim the mantle of modern-day Galileo. It is part of the whole persecution complex many/most Fundamentalist Christians feel the need to have.

Posted by TheSquire on November 8, 2007 at 2:45 AM

Ben Stein's blog is just more unsubstantiated attack on evolution in an attempt to conjure up a scientifc controvery where none exists. It's unfortunate that Rhonda Robinson tries to resusitate these well dunked claims under the guise of teaching children to think and reason.

Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism) cannot be blamed for political and economic misinterptetations and misuse in it's name.

People are certainly free to hold whatever beliefs they want but they are not free to introduce religion into the science classroom, both on consitutional and pedogigical grounds.

Rather than wait for Stein's movie to come out in February, watch the PBS Nova program next Tuesday (November 13) and see what happens to a public school district when a religiously motivated school board tries to sneak religion into the science classroom. It was the community members who subsequently voted out the old board members in order to safe guard their children's science education. Sadly, it was the tax payers who got saddled with the $1 million in legal fees.

Everyone is free to practice religion and discuss it openly, but don't try to disguise it as science in order to create a wedge in the separation between church and state.

Posted by drkimme on November 8, 2007 at 10:11 AM

There was a time I agreed that Intelligent Design did not belong in the schools, but that went with Darwinism being taught as a theory. One belief on how the world possibly evolved that could fit into peoples belief structures if they were flexible enough in their thoughts.

That is gone. Last night I read my 3rd grade sons public school Social Studies/History book.

The book has phrases like "United States, white supremist government", condemns the United States for "stealing" the Southwest among other great injustices put upon all those who are not "white" by the United States.

This is based in part upon the authors belief that the US stole the Southwest from Mexico, apparently a view taught in Mexico, that has spread to our academic circles. The belief is in direct conflict with our governments view, numerous court cases, GAO reports, and historical documents uphold the view of our government. All brushed aside as a "white supremist" government view.

The educational system is quick to criticize ID as unscientific, but also quick to teach only the view on history that they support.

Posted by wmb on November 8, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Wmb:

1. What does that have to do with ID? Oh wait, nothing. Let's stay on topic, please. There's still lots more eviscerating of ID that can be done here.

2. To address your point anyway, The Mexican-American War WAS a war of aggression on the part of the United States. The legal border was never the Rio Grande until after the war. A freshman Whig representative from Illinois, one Abraham Lincoln, made an early national name for himself by putting forward the Spot Resolutions to question basis for the war. (You'd probably question his patriotism and loyalty were he alive today, calling the rest of congress out on their support of the Iraq war.) Before you go objecting to history, you might want to actually learn it. As for the term "white supremacist," it was very apt, although the period of Reconstruction saw it repressed for a bit.

3. When scientists talk about theories, they're talking about something different than what a layperson refers to as a theory. (The latter being what scientists call a hypothesis.) Referring to/implying that evolution is "just a theory" is a rhetorical tactic used by Creationists, and does not reflect the science involved. Gravity is also "just a theory," but I don't think you'd want me climbing up a ladder and releasing a bowling ball over your head. Gravity's just a theory, so I couldn't be sure where the ball would go and thus wouldn't be legally responsible for the injuries done to you by the ball, right?

While I'm at it, why does everyone else in this thread insist on calling evolution "Darwinism"? Not only is it not a real "-ism," it's not even the "-ism" being attacked by Creationists. The "-ism" at stake is Methodological Naturalism, known more commonly as the Scientific Method. This is the rational means by which scientists investigate the universe we reside in. Invoking magical beings to explain things is completely alien to the purpose, aim, and method of science. This reason alone should be sufficient to keep ID, or whatever next cloak is that Christian Fundamentalists try to throw over Creationism, out of the science classroom.

Posted by TheSquire on November 8, 2007 at 6:29 PM

TheSquire:

It has to do with trust, if they lie on one thing to meet an agenda, they will on the other. Its about their agenda, not a childs education.

2. I've read the GAO and other reports, Supreme Court cases etc. So here is my view on my childs book and this issue.

The author was entitled to express their view, and the school to discuss it, but only with the view of the government of this country and an open discussion. I find it offensive but feel free to offend, its your right, that you insinuate your views are correct, so I must be uneducated on the issue. I am not. I've gone so far as to read the Congressional Record, which can be a pain, but I felt it was important for context, GAO, other reports, and Court cases. as well as looking at the other side.

The legal board was disputed by both sides decided by international arbitration which Mexico agreed to. That Mexico and Texas at the time should have disagreed on a boundary is hardly surprising. Myself, I am glad Mexico and the US agreed to let the International Boundery Commission get involved. Its in neither countries interest to not respect the bounderies of the other country.

As far as "Darwinism" , its a term that is used is all, as far as I know it doesn't mean in itself anything bad.

I've never had an issue working evolution into my faith. God as the all powerful, all knowing, can do whatever God wants. God does not have to obey the laws of reality, or physics, or whatever that we do. Such is God.

I do understand the language scientists use.

Posted by wmb on November 9, 2007 at 2:25 PM

"The legal board was disputed by both sides decided by international arbitration which Mexico agreed to."

That should read "The legal boarder was disputed by both sides and decided by international arbitration which Mexico agreed to."

Posted by wmb on November 9, 2007 at 2:27 PM

*Sigh*

I really wish for a way to edit posts. More often then not I find myself with limited time to review a post.

The Border disputes were decided by an international commission. Another note, its actually been redone a couple of times because of flooding and the shifting of land. Consideration is often given to who settled in the areas as the land shifted to new areas following flooding. So yes, there are disputes still at times, but they can be resolved with reason instead of rhetoric.

The treaty of guadalupe can not constitutionally give those who became citizens based upon the treaty rights above other citizens of the US.

That is what some of the arguments were about, US courts decide US treaties by the laws of the US. If Mexico had a problem with the treaty, they could take it to international law. They did not as far as I could tell. Rather they sold further land later to the US.

The land grants were difficult to sort out because of the historical changes durning the period covered. Some grants were claimed by more then one person. Some grantees or descendents of grantees sold their land, then claimed the US government should not have let them sell their land, because it was their land in forever. Yet, the US government does not have control at the point it became their land and they were citizens.

The GAO reports did not cover review of court cases , as in deciding if the courts were wrong. The GAO doesn't do that, they are not a court, a higher court would have to review the cases. The supreme court did review some of the cases taken that far, but again under US laws, the Supreme Court is a court of the United States, not an international Court.

Posted by wmb on November 9, 2007 at 2:49 PM

wmb,

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about the Mexican-American war, which was totally a land grab on our part, using Texas as an excuse. (The fact that Mexico at the time had more land than it could actually control being a separate, but related, issue.) The GAO didn't even exist back then, so I have no clue what it has to do with anything.

The study of American History is not, and should never be, an exercise in Jingoism. To deny the fact that our country has done some really shifty stuff is to leave students blind to the things our government tries to pull in the modern age.

So, if you're not confused on the point that when scientists talk about the Theory of Evolution, they're talking about the well-settled understanding of the fact of evolution, what then is the problem you have with keeping Creationism out of the science classroom?

Posted by TheSquire on November 10, 2007 at 2:24 AM

wmb,

Thank you for taking time to comment. You are one of the few that actually understood the point of the post. The flow of comments in this thread, illustrated Steins point very nicely.

TheSquire wrote: &talking about the well-settled understanding of the fact of evolution&

The point is that there are REAL scientists that do not believe that evolution is a well-settled fact. However, they are met with the same hostility and distain that has flavored this thread. They frame it as a religion vs. science debate, and dismiss it as pure fantasy. However, the scientists who are doing research in ID are looking exclusively at the science.

Stein is saying that every writers opinion is tainted by the age in which he lives, i.e. Darwinism and Imperialism, your sons text book by the politically correct speech that engulfs academia todayboth are slanted by the worldview of the writer.

When it comes to children in the classroom, you are right--trust is a very big issue. After all you are intrusting your childs mind, and worldview to someone else. And for parents, we need (as you did) to read the text books.

Science now is in the grips of those who believe that there is no God in science. Elitists hold so tightly to the doctrine of evolution that they will not consider another view, scientists who question are ostracized and outcast.

However, that has not always been the case. Great men of science that have made historical discoveries have been men of faith. They have seen Gods finger prints on His creation. Today, the mere profession of faith disqualifies you as a scientist.

The documentary investigates reports of a massive effort to silence those scientists, and professors who dare question the dogma of Darwinism.

They even did it with humor, with Ben Stein as a rebel. The website plays Bad to the Bone with Stein in shorts. Hysterical.

Personally, I find it humorous that the same people that believe a Creator is pure fantasy also believe that finding aliens not. NASA has launched the space ship Dawn in hoping to bring back answers to our origins and other life forms.

Posted by Rhonda on November 10, 2007 at 7:02 AM

Rhonda,

You are incorrect on several points:

There may be 'real' scientists who oppose evolution but they are in a select minority and more importantly, they have no evidence for their conclusions. Their opposition is motivated by religious faith, not scientific evidence. What we teach in science classrooms is consensus science, those therories that are widely accepted and supported by large amounts of data from a variety of fields. Biological evolution, better decribed as 'decent with modification' or 'differential reproduction', is supported by hundreds of years of evidence from geography, biochemistry, molecular genetics, morphology, developmental biology, ethology, and paleotology just for an incomplete list. Intelligent design advocates look at nature and say, gee whiz, it had to be designed by a designer (whom they refuse to name). No further evidence for their claims need be presented though evolution, in spite of the mountains of evidence, is not 'proven' and therefore is no better than just another metaphysical claim. Where is the published research for ID? You cannot skip to the front of the line and into the science classroom just because you make a philosophical statement about the nature of reality. Science is based on experiment and evidence, otherwise one claim is as good as another. IDers need to step up to the plate, do the hard work like 'real' scientists, and present their evidence like everyone else. It's hard work and there's no basis for their claims; no wonder they try to bring their discredited arguments to the media and sway public opinion in an attempt to do an end-around the scientific process.

The entire ID arguement smacks of post modernist relativism; science is religion and religion is really science, so let's teach both and let unsuspecting and unpreprared children decide for themselves. Rhonda argues that scientists are 'blinded' by their adherence to an atheistic worldview that motivates them to persecute IDers who somehow have grasped a truth that scientists just don't want to let out of the bag. Really now, that's a heck of a conspiracy theory.

The Squire correctly identified this as an arguement between scientific naturalism vs supernaturalism. Evolution is singled out as the attack point to insert a wedge between church and state. But again, where's the justification for supernaturalism in the science classroom?

Some scientists believe in a god, some do not. You are free to discuss religion until the cows come home and tell your kids whatever you want; how about in a comparative religion class or in philosophy class? Would you teach a supernatural viewpoint in physics or chemisty? Electronics? Driver's Ed? Accounting? Of course not, because it adds nothing to the subject matter. That's why we keep it out of the science classroom.

Posted by drkimme on November 10, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Rhonda,

I challenge you to show me the results of research done under the framework of Intelligent Design that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has not been subsequently ripped to shreds. For the record, any journal that requires the submitting author(s) to sign a statement of faith is not a scientific journal.

Science and evolution are both Agnostic, and those with faith are not driven out of science. I myself am Catholic and work as a biologist in a research lab. Those whose insistence in placing Supernaturalism over Methodological Naturalism ARE run out, because the latter is the basis of all science, and thus those that hold to the former are incapable of producing anything that will stand up to peer review.

I could go on, but I'll see how you respond to drkimme and me first. You've yet to really address the fact that Intelligent Design isn't science, and until you do everything else you say is just bluster.

Posted by TheSquire on November 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Because it's topical, here's the website for the recent NOVA program on the recent Kitzmiller case, Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Posted by TheSquire on November 14, 2007 at 10:04 PM

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to these posts. My Thanksgiving holiday began on Veterans Day with a trip to WI.

I really find it interesting that you see this debate as "post modernist relativism; science is religion and religion is really science." I don't see it that way at all. I'll have to think about that.

I will concede at this point, ID does not belong in the classroom- at least not as supernaturalism.

I am not a scientist. But what intrigued me about Stein's movie promotion is that he claims that there is scientific evidence. That scientists are not allowed (fear of losing their jobs, peer pressure)to bring forth their ideas.

You claim that I have failed to address the "fact" that ID is not science. The entire point of this post was that there is a new documentary out, interviewing scientists who say that it is science. I leave to the science community to hash it out. I just want to hear what both sides have to say. I have heard a lifetime of evolution, and honestly, even if you took out a Creator, I find evolution very hard to swallow.

I'm not alone. I read somewhere, quite a while back, that a very large portion of the general society does not "believe" in evolution.

Ben Stein will be speaking at the U of I on the 29th. Frankly, the passion in these posts surprise me. You're passion and knowledge on the subject matches only my curiosity. I hope you all will be there to hear what he has to say. I would love to pick up the conversation after we hear him speak.

Posted by Rhonda on November 21, 2007 at 9:07 AM

One thing that the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial showed conclusively is that intelligent design isn't a new theory, it's just creationism repackaged in an attempt to make it more palatable.

First ID proponents tried "teach the controversy" in order to make it sound like there really was a controversy around evolution. Now they're trying the "help, help, we're being repressed" tactic.

There just *isn't* any evidence for creationism. It's not a new theory; it's a *failed* theory, just like the aether, phlogiston, and the four humours. If these persecuted, ID-believing scientists have some evidence to support their position, then by all means, they should bring it forward. But they don't. All they have is religious dogma, and that's not science.

Posted by narciblog on November 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Hi narciblog, good to see you around. You grant ID too much credit in calling it a failed theory - it never reached such lofty status. It is a faulty and failed hypothesis, nothing more.

Rhonda,

I guarantee you that any/all "evidence" that proponents of Intelligent Design advance do not take the form of scientific evidence at all, but merely take the form of an Argument from Personal Incredulity, aka argumentum ad ignorantiam, which is a logical fallacy. The basic form of this type of faulty logic goes, "Look at x, we cannot explain x offhand, therefore x implies y," with y being some sort of unsubstantiated claim. This is the entire basis of Behe's Irreducible Complexity idea, which was ripped to shreds in the Kitzmiller decision. The NOVA documentary on said decision should be up on the web by now, you should watch it. You should also go read the Kitzmiller decision yourself.

As a completely rhetorical argument, if there IS evidence to support ID being a scientific idea, why was it not presented at the Kitzmiller trial, held in front of a conservative, Republican-appointed judge?

The thing is, ID by nature is supernaturalism. Any time an all-powerful being is invoked (and that's what ID proponents do) it is a "science-stopper", to use a term from the NOVA documentary. After that point, there can be no further investigation, since one cannot investigate the powers, capabilities, or reasoning behind such a being. Even though saying this makes me feel like I'm flogging a dead horse, the appeal to the supernatural is why ID is not and will never be science.

Also, there is no conspiracy to keep pro-ID scientists quiet. It's just that any one who does try to pipe up has their arguments ripped to shreds (like what's happening to your points, only with much less courtesy, since they should know better). I personally cannot blame anyone for not wanting to ruin their own scientific reputation. However, one must also note that scientists love to be iconoclasts: if correct, it gets sections of textbooks devoted to them and their work and ensures that the grant money will keep rolling in. To claim any sort of conspiracy in science is thus silly.

What the general population does or does not believe in has no bearing on scientific fact. What the majority believes is only a function of the poor science education in this country, especially in areas where teachers are heavily encouraged to gloss over evolution in direct opposition to state education standards. There are many evidences for evolution: the fossil record, the "universal" codon code (which itself shows descent with modification), sequence homologies between related proteins within the same species and between the same proteins in difference species, and the universality of many major biochemical pathways easily come off the top of my head. So, I have to wonder, what among all that makes evolution "hard to swallow" for you?

As for the documentary itself, I know that at least one scientist who is pro-evolution, PZ Myers, was interviewed under false pretenses. (He runs the blog Pharyngula - if he weren't a strident atheist and likely to completely turn you off the topic, I'd suggest you read it regularly.)

I am well aware of Ben Stein's visit to campus. My understanding is that he will be talking on the political state of the nation and not about his documentary. I may go if I'm not already busy, but beyond rhetoric that is easily refuted by a quick browse of the Index to Creationist Claims I would not expect anything new from him.

I apologize for the disjointedness of this post - you brought up a lot of things which I though all had to be addressed. In any case, I am always welcome to continuing this dialog.

Posted by TheSquire on November 22, 2007 at 11:32 PM

By the way, I don't see the issue as "Post modern relativism" at all - I see it as Fundamentalist Christianists being threatened by rational thought and attacking the means of teaching such at its perceived weak point.

Posted by TheSquire on November 22, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Good point Squire. I was of course, using the term "theory" in the colloquial sense rather than the technical sense. Creationists have been exploiting the difference for ages, wish "Evolution is just a theory, not a law" being one of their standard arguments.

The Nova documentary is a good one. I just fear it will become another reason for its detractors to accuse PBS of having a "liberal bias."

Posted by narciblog on November 23, 2007 at 5:08 PM

By referring to post-modern relativism I was referring to the religious right's cynical attempt to use scientific terminology and methodology to advance their religious agenda. By their nature, conservative believers tend toward a literalistic interpretation of sacred texts and black/white view of social values. Since their attempts at removing evolution from science classrooms had failed they tried a new tactic: pretend that they are doing science too, initially packaged as "creation science". The irony was plain to see and it was rightly shot down in courts as a promotion of religion in the science classroom. Then their PR agents got to work and reformulated creation science as "Intelligent Design". Then the argument goes that they have a valid scientific theory but the "evolutionists" won't allow it in the classroom because they're too committed to the "faith" of evolution. Therefore the religious right has repackaged themselves as the true scientists and science as a matter of blind faith. If they're both science, or both faith, they should both be allowed in the science classroom. This is what's behind the "teach the controversy"

slogan so cleverly thought up by the Discovery Institute (which has discovered nothing by the way). It appeals to the American public's sense of fairness but as was pointed out in earlier posts what's taught in science class is not a matter of popular demand.

So, the conservative religionists have used a relativistic strategy in order to advance their dogmatic world view.

Posted by drkimme on November 26, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Evolution is still called the "Theory of Evolution" because it is not a fact. It has not been proven without doubt. Scientists have worked the problem backwards and given as most logical solution and called evolution. That theory will never be completly proven nor dis-proven. Now, you may believe in it like a Christian or any other Religious person believes in creation. Once again Creation will never be completely proven (well once your dead you'll know) or dis-proven. Yet you (the scientist/evolutionist) are right and they(creationist) are wrong? Furthermore they are so wrong that we cannot even discuss it in schools? Why are we limiting what is possible. No one has been proven right and no one has been proven wrong. The wrong lies in those so pompous that the fail to even allow the point to be argued. I thought the point of science was to explore all angles, think outside the box, and not to put limitations on the possible. I guess that is only the case if you agree with the "scientists".

By the way my Wife is a PhD student who works in the area of Physiology. Almost everyone in her lab is a Christian. I guess they aren't real scientists either, right?

Posted by Kducey on November 27, 2007 at 1:56 PM

Let me re-phrase my third sentence from above...

It should read...

Scientists have worked the problem backwards and given us the most logical solution they could manage and called it evolution.

Posted by Kducey on November 27, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Kducey,

Did you bother to read anything that drkimme and I wrote in the preceding thread before you started copying and pasting talking points from Answers in Genesis? Since you apparently neglected to do so, I'll be nice and address what you've written point by point.

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the current state of understanding of how evolution works in general and how it has proceeded on this planet in particular. As with any theory, the exact details may change as new evidence is revealed, but the nature of those changes becomes more nitpicky over time. By merely bringing this point up, though, you are intentionally confusing the colloquial definition of 'theory' with that used within science. Under the same logic, you should have no problems with me climbing a stepladder and releasing a bowling ball over your head, because Gravity is "just a theory".

Second, I am Catholic, and therefore Christian. Being Christian does not necessarily make one a Creationist. Setting up science and Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) against each other creates a false dichotomy. The only Christians who have issues with evolution are the uneducated and the Biblical Literalists.

Thirdly, science, by its own rules, cannot resort to supernatural explanations, as they cannot be tested, repeated, or independently verified. To quote one of the people in the NOVA documentary on the Kitzmiller case, the supernatural is a "science-stopper." One can talk about Creationism until they're blue in the face while in a comparative religions class, but "God did it," has never been, is not, and will never be a serious scientific explanation for anything and so has no business being taught in a science classroom (unless, of course, as an example of what science is not).

And lastly, about your closing anecdote: please see the second point, and also note that science is not a democracy.

The vast majority of all this stuff has already been addressed in the thread above. Please read it before responding, or else my next reply to you will be a list of URLs pointing towards the Index of Creationist Claims. I prefer not to write for the benefit of someone who refuses to read.

Posted by TheSquire on November 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Squire brings up the Index of Creationist Claims. I've a href="http://narciblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/can-we-get-some-intelligence-in-design.html"already tried to point out the Claims Robinson used/a in this post. I found no fewer than seven, which is pretty impressive for such a short blog post.

Posted by narciblog on November 28, 2007 at 12:54 PM

So it looks like the N-G commenting software mangles even the simplest of HTML. Sigh. Sorry about that.

Posted by narciblog on November 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM

The Squire,

I shouldn't have debated Evolution, I believe we are still evolving, see vestigal appendages.

However, my debate is where did life start? Are you going to start telling me about the "big bang" theory or Miller and Urey? Are those facts? Is Creation a fact, scientifically? Are any of them, nope just the best guesses we could come up with. Like I said before scientists worked the problem backwards and that is the best they could do and none of it can be proven, nor disproven.

So they point is why can't we debate it?

Never forget what Eleanor Roosevelt said...

"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events and small mnds talk about people"

Don't we want to mold our youth to become great minds? If that is the case are the varied theories we've discussed ideas? It seems we only want to have them discuss events.

What is everyone scared of?

Posted by Kducey on November 30, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Kducey, again, you seem to be conflating "theory" with "unproven" and "fact" with "proven" which isn't the correct technical use of those words. Science never proves anything. It provides *theories* to explain *data* in support of a *hypothesis.*

You seem to be arguing that until something is "proven", all theories are equally valid, which is untrue. We developed the Big Bang Theory, not because it is some sort of unproven guess, but because it best explains the evidence we observe. We can use it to make testable predictions about the universe, then go on to verify those predictions are real. See the cosmic microwave background as an excellent example.

No one is saying we can't have a discussion on intelligent design creationism. But until the creationists can come up with some actual evidence supporting their so-called theory, it's not science and shouldn't be taught in science classrooms.

Posted by narciblog on November 30, 2007 at 3:42 PM

What am I scared of? That our country's backslide into ignorance will be accelerated by ignorant individuals like yourself acting in groups to undermine science education. Just because your fundamentalist interpretation of a 2000 year old religion (the main pillars of which - Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the mainline Protestant churches - reject said interpretation) conflicts with the current understanding of reality and Natural History, does not give you the right, privilege, or moral cause to stunt the educations of others' children. The supernatural, i.e. saying "God did it," has no explanatory power, and is thus rightly excluded from the realm of science. To include such magical thinking in science curricula (other than to point out that it is not scientific) will rob children of a proper understanding of the method of science and of the knowledge gained from it. These intellectually stunted individuals will then, deprived of critical thinking skills, will be sent out into the world as sheep. Unable to properly evaluate claims, as such education was stolen from them, they will not be able to take full advantage of new technology or figure out when an advertisement or politician is lying to them. This is the larger cost of undermining science education, beyond the misrepresentation of entire disciplines. That your literalist faith blinds you to this consequence makes me pity you and sad for your own children.

Posted by TheSquire on December 1, 2007 at 6:25 PM

So I'm ingnorant because I don't believe the big bang theory or Miller and Urey? I'm ignorant because I want all possibilities discussed in schools? I'm intelectually stunted because I have faith? You pity me and my children? I feel for you when your time comes, I'll pray for you. It's obvious you're angry maybe you need Christ. Good luck.

Posted by Kducey on December 3, 2007 at 3:43 PM

"It's obvious you're angry maybe you need Christ."

You do realize you were responding to a practicing Catholic, right? Or do they not count as "real" Christians?

We do not teach things in science classes that aren't science. Creationism isn't science. It is a primarily conservative Christian doctrine that has no evidence supporting it.

Let me make this clear, whether it is compatible with your religious beliefs or not, evolution is the only scientific theory in use today by actual scientists that explains the diversity and development of life on Earth. It has withstood the test of time and is well-supported by evidence.

We do not teach unproven "controversies" in schools and tell children ill-equipped with the knowledge or experience to analyze the evidence "decide for themselves." We give them the best information we have available. We do not teach the miasma theory of disease along with the germ theory of disease. We do not present the "controversy" surrounding whether the Holocaust actually happened. We do not teach that the Sun goes around the Earth, even though some "Biblical astronomers" believe it does. (There is even an annual geocentricism conference.)

Creationism simply isn't science.

Posted by narciblog on December 4, 2007 at 1:05 PM

So you're saying the Big Bang Theory is as factual as the Holocaust.

Wow that's a stretch.

I was raised Catholic.

The Big Bang isn't science either, that's my point. It's a guess at best.

I've told you before I believe in Evolution, I don't believe we came from Monkeys though.

Posted by Kducey on December 4, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Narci,

Kducey is reading but not comprehending. I don't think wasting more words on him will do much good.

Posted by TheSquire on December 4, 2007 at 8:30 PM

"Narci,

Kducey is reading but not comprehending. I don't think wasting more words on him will do much good."

Because I have a different view point I can't comprehend? Wow that's genius. And I'm close minded? Who lowered this arguement by resulting to name calling? If you want to act like grade schoolers, do you want to take this to the playground? You amuse me actually.

One last point, I never said Creationism should be taught in science class but rather, "DISCUSSED". The big bang theory can not be taught either because there is zero hard evidence to prove any of it. It should also be discussed, and the young minds should be allowed to form their own opinion. Each side should be allowed to debate what they believe to be the evidence.

Do you comprehend?

Posted by Kducey on December 5, 2007 at 9:37 AM

What you're not comprehending is the large amount of typing I did on Methodological Naturalism, a.k.a. the Scientific Method. Creationism has no scientifically admissible evidence, as the supernatural by nature is outside of the ability of science to explain or deal with. (I know that this is at least the third time I personally have made this statement in this thread.) To "discuss" Creationism in a science classroom without a specific and emphatic rejection of it IS teaching it, and is also a blatant violation of the separation of Church and State.

There is no scientific parity between Evolution and Creationism. The controversy is societal and political, but not scientific. This is what you refuse to comprehend, Kducey.

Posted by TheSquire on December 7, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Once again you miss the point. How is allowing a conversation about the possibility of Creation a violation of Church and State? If you have a discussion that is for it and against it aren't all avenues explored?

I didn't read all of your postings, so forgive me.

Posted by Kducey on December 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Because creationists don't have any evidence for their position. It's not a scientific position; it's religious doctrine. I would say that having a brief conversation in a science class that explains why creationism won't be studied is reasonable. Implying that there is some legitimate disagreement in the scientific community between evolution and creationism is untrue and is the promotion of a religion. That's a clear C&S violation.

Creationists aren't interested in having a calm and reasonable "conversation" on the merits of creationism. They're demanding that it be given equal footing with evolution when they have no support for their position.

Posted by narciblog on December 7, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Is there any scientific evidence to support the big bang theory?

I also believe you are selling people of faith short. I think we are having a reasonable discussion right now.

Once again I would disagree that by discussing the possibility of creation that you are violating the terms of C&S. All parties are equally represented, I would argue that by not discussing it you are violating the terms of C&S because you are giving more creedence to atheism.

Posted by Kducey on December 11, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Science is agnostic, not atheistic. Christianity does not equal Creationism, so keeping Creationism out of the science classroom does not violate C&S. Also, as I've stated before, science is not a democracy. All parties are not equally represented, only those with evidence behind them. The supernatural cannot be systematically tested, let alone in a manner that can be replicated, and as such is by nature inadmissible in a science classroom and in science in general. I keep saying this, and you keep refusing to deal with this point. This is why I've gotten very frustrated with you, and why Creationists in general get a (probably justifiable) bad rap.

I am not a physiscist, and am not really qualified to discuss the big bang theory. However, I can easily find, via the Index of Creationist Claims, a very good discussion of everything you ever wanted to know about the Big Bang Theory, and all the stuff you didn't want to know as well, here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Besides, anyone who knows the first thing about Big Bang Theory knows that it does not describe the actual creation of the universe, only those events immediately proceeding from it. I fail to see how it is germane to this discussion on Creationism.

Posted by TheSquire on December 12, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Read the National Academy of Sciences' new booklet, "Science, Evolution, and Creationsm" for free here: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=R1

It deals with a lot of the basic facts of the matter that Kducey et al. were having a hard time grasping.

Posted by TheSquire on January 9, 2008 at 10:33 PM