It’s over. The new school board in Dover, PA, officially voted down the teaching of Intelligent Design.
Yay!
Of course, it’s not really over. Like a case of necrotizing fasciitis, the IDers will be back once again, trying to destroy the tissue of society.
Creationism and ID are full of ironies, too many to name. Perhaps the biggest, though, is their trying to frame it as a squelching of their religious liberty. But it is exactly the opposite. They are trying to squelch ours.
How is that? Just read the words of Frederick Callahan, a citizen of Dover, PA, when he testified at the Dover trial:
Well, what am I supposed to tolerate? A small encroachment on my First Amendment rights? Well, I’m not going to. I think this is clear what these people have done. And it outrages me.
What he’s talking about is the IDers trying to ram their brand of religion down the throats of everyone else. Mr. Callahan, not that it matters in the real world, is not an atheist. His family runs a vacation Bible school, and he is a churchgoer. While this doesn’t matter in the real world, it matters a great deal in the unreality populated by proponents of ID, because, despite their claims, they are framing this as religion against science. They may claim that they are simply pointing out "flaws" in evolution, and using scientific-sounding arguments, but their real intent is clear: to teach their particular flavor of religion in our public schools’ science classes. The judge in the Dover case saw right through this ploy, and was quite clear in his statement about it. He even called them liars, referring to their coy attempt at saying they were not religiously motivated.
ID is obviously no ally of science, but in another delicious irony, its proponents are not allies of religion, either, unless you have an incredibly narrow definition of religion; most religions have no problem with an old Earth, with evolution, with science in general.
ID is a religious viewpoint, and is one tiny sliver in a wide-ranging spectrum of religions. And whether it’s narrow or broad, it’s unconstitutional to teach it in a public school science class. There are people out there who know their rights. Frederick Callahan is one of them.
And in the end, ID is not even religion versus science. That’s too narrow a definition by far. It’s fantasy versus reality, it’s fallaciousness versus truth. But as long as they frame it as religion, then the Constitution is clear about this, right there in the very First Amendment. And if they want to back off the claim of religion, then they’re sunk as well, because science it definitely ain’t. They’re welcome to try to claim it is, but they’ll run into more trouble than they can handle there as well. They may be able to dupe some people, but they’re shooting blanks when when it comes to scientists. Wherever and whenever they turn up, we’ll be waiting, and we’ll have truth, evidence, facts, and reality fighting along side us.
Tip o’ the BABlog hat to The Questionable Authority for the quotation by Mr. Callahan.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Are they really that disparate? Is it so difficult to fathom evolution as a part of some kind of design? I personally don’t have a problem accepting evolution within the greater scope of the universe and religion. I also don’t think that blind faith is quite the objective either . . . but that’s just me.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Brilliantly penned, Phil!
Jamie: a cursory perusal of the anti-science organizations’ commentaries (like those of The Discovery Institute) is rather telling, albeit in a disheartening way. It’s tremendously unfortunate that a number of similar groups have chosen to adopt such egregious positions.
I have no religious beliefs at all myself, but as you note, acceptance of evolution based upon the mountains of supporting evidence shouldn’t be portrayed as incompatible with one’s faith. The intellectual dishonesty exhibited by the anti-science organizations quite simply appalls me, as it violates the very tenets of scripture held so dearly.
These attempts at polarization are most unwelcome and unnecessary. People of faith should be able to freely reconcile their religious beliefs with demonstrably correct scientific models and analyses — without aspersions being unduly cast by their peers.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:38 am
While in LA last week, I visited an old millionaire couple (trying to secure my inheritance,
) with no scientific background whatsoever, and they remaked that “apparently we do not believe in ID anymore.” They were referring, of course, to the Dover ruling. I wasn’t sure how to interpret this remark, but I suspect they felt that the ruling was aimed against religion (like all good millionaires, this couple was fervently Republican). I believe that we have still some ways to go in explaining to the general public the difference between science and religion, and why it is important to make that distinction.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:00 am
i am a churchgoer, a christian, and i do believe in an “intelligent designer”. however, i would NEVER want “intelligent design” taught in a science classroom, even if what they taught was exactly what i believe. why? because, quite simply, it’s not science.
in fact, i think a lot of the problem is ignorance by the majority of the public of what is religion, what isn’t religion, and what different religions (or lack thereof) actually believe. that’s why i think that some sort of comparitive religion class should be mandatory in high school. lack of knowledge and understanding of religious beliefs, philosophies, and world views, leads to major problems once kids are out of school. how many times do we hear the argument from religous people that atheists must be amoral because they have no external moral code? or that all muslims must believe that they should be a martyr and get 72 virgins? or that all christians believe the earth is 10,000 years old?
anyway, i completely agree with ba – this is not a religion vs. science issue at all – i for one, as a christian, will keep fighting to make sure “id” stays out of my children’s science classrooms…
January 4th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Centurys ago, Scientists used to refer to “The Great Architect” as being behind the “design” of the universe. Then, there were men like Bruno who were killed over their publications. Society has “evolved” a long way since those inquisition times.
Everytime I look through a telescope at the megamultitude of stars in outer space, my mind goes: ???????????????????????????????….
January 4th, 2006 at 7:22 am
I’ve always likened ID to very old maps, the ones where the unknown parts were labeled with things like “Here abide monsters…” They want to be able to point to something and say “There is the hand of God!”
Sorry to disappoint them, but the universe is self consistent. God isn’t required to poke around messing with the rules to make things happen. What better testament to the creator than to discover more about our universe that is so intricately put together that human beings are inherent in the same set of rules that govern the stars and the planets.
If you want to find miracles, look for them in the actions and hearts of your fellow human beings. To look for proof of God in some deep corner of science seems a fruitless and impossible task.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:32 am
I have a question. The alleged reason that ID proponents give for including it in the curriculum is that evolution is a controversial, flawed theory and that alternatives should be considered. If that is so, are there any _scientific_ alternatives to evolutionary theory, as opposed to ID’s supernatural “designer”? I have yet to see any.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:00 am
From a faith point of view, ID is a tactical error as it comes across as a rehash of “God of the Gaps”.
They point to very complex systems and say that it could not have evolved it must have been designed. My question is what about the apparent simple systems though, why do they ignore them. So ID is cherry picking. (From what I have seen even the simple is quite complex)
They say it is done by a designer, but never name the designer, it is taken as read that it is the God of the Bibel, but they never name him, lending themselves open to the charge of being deceitful. (Even ICR criticised IDers for not saying who the designer is)
At least with full blown creationism you know where you are, people holding to the teachings of the book of Genesis (and Exodus if you know where to look) with an openly declared allegence and agenda.
There is no need to resort to something that is seen as deceitful as there are areas in organic evolutionary where a glossing over has been done which needs to be flagged, such as lack of transitional forms, mutation rates, reliability of radiometic dating to name a few. (I see the links to trueorigins being fired at me already).
Also from a faith view, ID is a tactical error, as it gets people’s backs up. Science teachers feel under threat and as a result get stressed out, hardly conducive to winning hearts and minds.
Place the teaching of origin beliefs in a humanities class, separate from the main science curriculum. That way the science teacher is not under stress and the faith groups can get a hearing.
Everybody wins.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:20 am
And another thing!
If this Designer is so Intelligent, then why is the design so bad? The fact that we are walking upright creates all sorts of problems (e.g., back pains, etc).
January 4th, 2006 at 8:47 am
I think the problem is that we, as humans, are too limited – too finite if you will, to understand time and space. Look how many people believe in astrology. !
The nearest star to our sun, proxima centauri, is 4.22 light years away. that’s 24.807 trillion miles away. We can’t even get our minds around a number that size, and it’s the closest one!
This example is the very tiniest fraction of what boggles our minds with what we know about the universe. Because it’s so big, because it’s so hard to understand, many turn to religion (or use religion) to explain things that we don’t know or can’t conclusively prove.
ID is the same thing that many religious people have used for a long, long time. If you can’t explain/prove it with science, then it must be divine. It’s the weakest argument that has ever been, but the fact that it has supporters even in the highest level of government somehow legitimizes it.
I appreciate Bob’s comments above, as a christian, but I disagree that a comparative religion class should be mandatory in high school. That would be the same thing as ID unless it was explored as a fictional, literary pursuit. It legitimizes religion using public school, and we’re back to the first amendment.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:02 am
PK says:
“If this Designer is so Intelligent, then why is the design so bad? The fact that we are walking upright creates all sorts of problems (e.g., back pains, etc).”
Good point – I think I.D. should be called “incompetent design” just for these reasons. Here’s a cute thing on this… I’ve found that the only people who get offended by this are the fundamentalists who insist on their Biblical literalism as “science”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE NEW I.D. – “INCOMPETENT DESIGN”
Speaking of ID, picked this up awhile back: (credit at end)
EXT. THE HEAVENS – DAY (SIX)
[The Grand Old Designer (GOD) is tinkering with his latest creation. Enter
the Angel STAN, a close friend.]
STAN: Hey, I got your message. Wassup?
GOD: Oh, hi, Stan. Just finishing a thing.
STAN: Wow, is that Earth down there? It looks great!
GOD: Thanks.
STAN: Beasts and fishes and everything. You’ve really put a lot of work into
that. And it shows.
GOD: Aw, it’s just this thing I’ve been doing, you know.
STAN: Well, it’s top-notch. So, what’s the four one one?
GOD: Just the crowning acheivement. They think, they talk, they’re all that
and a bag of chips. Stan, behold.. Man.
[With a flourish, GOD displays his Creation.]
STAN: Okayyyy..
GOD: Pretty great, huh?
STAN: Yeah, super. [pause.] But -
GOD: What?
STAN: Well, I don’t know. You’re the omnipotent one, but.
GOD: Come on, what’s on your mind?
STAN: Well, it sort of looks like you copied some of the skeletal stuff from
those “monkeys” down there.
GOD: Hey, if it ain’t broke. What’s your point?
STAN: Well, you’ve got these new things standing upright, correct?
GOD: Yes.
STAN: So, from a design standpoint, isn’t that a little wonky? I mean look
at the knees. A bipedal posture is going to wear those down painfully over
time.
GOD: Sure, but -
STAN: And the spine. It’s just not set up to take the stress of that gait. A
lot of these guys are going to have some pretty intense lower back pain.
GOD: Maybe, but -
STAN: And don’t even get me started on the females.
GOD: What’s wrong with Eve!?
STAN: Nothing, nothing – she’s a total cutie. But. look, you pretty much
just inflated the monkey skull to twice its normal size, right?
GOD: Er, pretty much.
STAN: Well, look at that girl’s hips. And her. fiddly bits.
GOD: What about ‘em?
STAN: With that skull size and that birth canal, you’re letting her in for a
world of pain. Thousands of ‘em are going to die trying to give birth.
GOD: But thousands more will live.
STAN: Sure.
[pause]
GOD: I’ll just tell ‘em that this is their burden. Cosmic justice and
whatnot.
STAN: Why do that when you could just design them with a little more
headroom down there? I mean, you do want to design this intelligently,
right?
GOD: Naturally.
STAN: So, howsabout you throw in a little more padding on the knees,
reinforce the lower spine, give the ladies a wider undercarriage and
badaboom! I mean, that’d work better than just a hastily-modified monkey,
right?
GOD: .
STAN: But hey, what do I know?
GOD: Is there anything else?
STAN: Wha-? No, I don’t think I should say -
GOD: No, come on! What’s on your mind?
STAN: You seem angry.
GOD: I’M NOT ANGRY!
STAN: You sound angry. Maybe I should go.
GOD: THOU SHALT TELL ME YOUR GRIPES!
[Thunderclap.]
STAN: Okay, okay. Uh.
GOD: Go on.
STAN: Okay. Putting the reproductive stuff so close to the waste systems is
going to cause a lot of infections, see? And look at this thing, this
“appendix’ – you just left that in there from your horses and whatnot and
it’s not even going to do anything except occasionally explode and kill its
owner, right? And I hate to harp on the upright thing, but couldn’t you have
reimagined these “feet” to be a little more durable, or do you actually want
their arches to collapse and the whole thing to hurt? And this whole genetic
system opens the door for spontaneous and/or hereditary mutations that can
cause devastating diseases and defects that can be passed down and
physically or mentally cripple some of their offspring right outa the gate.
[Pause.]
STAN: I guess what I’m saying is that with you being all-powerful and
all-knowing, why would you use 98% of your chimp design and cut corners on
your most important creation?
GOD: Maybe. I just work in mysterious ways. Did you ever think of that, Mr.
Smartypants?
STAN: Of course, of course. So. why not fix some of the obvious design flaws
and leave out some of the vestigial junk from other creatures down there?
It’s one thing to build in an expiration date, but with all your resources,
some of this just seems a little bit lazy, don’t you think? Why the
appendix? Why the monkey knees?
GOD: .
STAN: What?
GOD: . not telling.
STAN: Aw, come on.
GOD: No.
STAN: You don’t have a reason, do you?
GOD: I do too.
STAN: So why don’t you tell me?
GOD: It’s a secret.
STAN: Bull.
GOD: It’s true.
STAN: Whatever.
GOD: You’re anti-God, aren’t you?
STAN: What? No, I’m your friend.
GOD [pouty]: It sure doesn’t sound like it.
STAN: Well I am. Look, what do you say we go get a pizza, huh? Would that
make you feel better?
GOD: .maybe.
STAN: Okay, come on.
[They begin to leave.]
GOD: I really worked hard on that.
STAN: I know. And you did a great job.
GOD: Damn straight I did.
STAN: I’m just a quibbler, I guess.
GOD: I’ll say.
[GOD grabs his fedora, turns out the light. We hear a celestial Chevy
starting up, peeling out, and driving away.]
Stolen from http://www.felbers.net/fa/2005/11/25/designing-women-and-men/
January 4th, 2006 at 10:43 am
tj, just to clarify, i was not proposing anything like intelligent design – the class i’d like to see taught would be basically a philosophy course.
i would NOT want to see it taught as fictional, because THAT would be unconstitutional – the establishment clause does not make our government atheist or agnostic, it simply states that the federal government cannot establish an official state religion. this has been expanded in understanding to include the fact that the government cannot promote even a general religious philosophy as truth. but what would be the harm in LEARNING about the different religions/philosophies, INCLUDING atheism.
it shouldn’t be treated as fictional (i.e. literary fiction) or as factual (i.e. science), but more in how you would learn about history. if you learn about slavery in history, that doesn’t mean that the government is supporting slavery, but it does mean that it thinks you as a student should know about it.
but all that said, it’ll never happen…
oh, and very funny mattus!
January 4th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Bob, I agree with you that a comparative religions class in high school would provide sorely needed education and eye-opening for our young people. Teaching ABOUT the world’s religions would do a lot of good. It would be crucial, of course, to be extra careful to keep those courses religiously neutral.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Interesting article on ID in the November Esquire (link below requires a subscription, sorry). The gist of it is that if they thought it through, the ID-ots would realize that their premise is inconsistent with the religious view they’re trying to use it to promote.
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2005/11/01/1037818?ba=m&bi=1&bp=7
January 4th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Maximus, I had no idea how you found that thing, but it plain and simply RULED
As for the good news of the day, one more score for science! And that Mr. Callahan is pretty right.
Giving out religious ideas or even social ones in school is very risky in my opinion. You’re not at school to get your brain washed by what the TEACHER believes, you’re there to learn maths. Morals and values are to be given by the parents at home, not the teacher at school. Afterall, who’s kid is it?
And IDers can just go on saying: “it’s not a religion we’re just proving evolution wrong!!” It’s bogus on both sides. They’re religiously driven and they’re pretty bad at proving the evolution theory wrong.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:51 am
The best way to resolve this issue, is forget that true science is part of intelligent design, and create a topic, perhaps taught in Sunday Schools (not Public Schools), called Science of the Bible. That’s what intelligent design is, a pathetic attempt at providing a Science of the Bible type of template, for future generations to build on and further attack the integrity of true science. For those who claim they are ID’ers and tolerant of others, and willing to accept the view of regular science, but choosing not to, all I have to say to them is that you’re on the fence, and get off it. There can be no way about it. You are either a reasonable, well read individual, with a firm footing in science, or you’re a proponent of a quack theory, attempting to explain patterns and trends in nature that may not seem reasonable at first glance. When the reason for comets, eclipses, seasons, climate, were unknown, people blamed a multitude of things, whether it was dragons, gods, curses, etc. These days, we have the ID’ers trying to explain, that which we have not fully resolved yet, through philosophy and religious mysticism.
Science without proof is as good as religion without faith.
Even with countless arguement and debate, the truth is, there is no middle ground, or gray area. One cannot fully embrace science, and also, call themselves a religious person. The two are mutually exclusive of each other, and thus, completely incompatible. Until we get beyond these truths, stop tip toeing around the fact, we cannot achieve clear, undiluted progress. Let’s forget Political Incorrectness, and be honest about what we believe. Attempting to be inclusive, by pretending to understand the rationality of an IDer, is completely baseless. We must be as forceful in our beliefs, and methods, as the ID’ers, and other Fanaticals are in theirs. You can’t fight a raging fire, with a small extinguisher.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Also, I meant to add, Good Job BA, you’re like one of those fuel retardant dropping C-130s. You’re making a difference, even though at times, it can seem like the Inferno’s overwhelming.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I’m all for comparitive religion classes in public schools and elsewhere. Don’t say any of the are right or any of them are wrong – just say what they are, how they came about, how many people follow them, their major tenets, etc. Also teach that lots of people have no religion at all. I hear shockingly unaware statements from some religious people who can’t imagine that other people don’t believe the same things they believe. Getting a feel for the varieties of religions that humans have made over the eons, and its absence, would have to defuse a lot of religious intolerance.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
When I was a wee lad, I used to go to sunday school, as was generally the norm in the early 70′s. As a young lad, I also didn’t totally buy into it from a pretty early age, so I was occasionally a pertuber of fecal matter, and regularly got kicked out. Thinking about the whole ID thing reminds me of one of those times:
SSTeacher: If you live without God (holds up cards for L, I, V, E)…
SST: your life will eventually be consumed by EVIL (said it with the capital letters and everything, rearranged cards to spell EVIL).
SST: But if you love God (holds up L, O, V, E) you will go to heaven. See, there’s no other word you can make from L, O, V, E. Isn’t God wonderful?
E_S: vole!
SST: Pardon?
E_S: vole. v-o-l-e. a little mouse thing. if I love God I’ll become a mouse. eew.
SST: Please leave, again, evolving_squid. I’ll talk to your mother again.
E_S: yes ma’am.
She was just spinning us a line of crap, with no basis, and when called on it, couldn’t even think up something at a 9-year-old would buy. If I had to pick the day I stopped believing, that was it, even though I went through the motions for years just because it was easier to placate people.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Ahem.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I read in the paper over the last few days that an Italian judge is ordering some priest to prove, in a court of law, that Jesus Christ existed. I don’t have a link, but if I find it I’ll be sure to post it.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Sticks, I find this a bit confusing. You said:
“…there are areas in organic evolutionary where a glossing over has been done which needs to be flagged, such as lack of transitional forms, mutation rates, reliability of radiometic dating to name a few. (I see the links to trueorigins being fired at me already).”
It looks like you’re saying that there are problems with some of the evidence quoted as supporting evolutionary theory. And you seem to anticipate a bit of direction to other websites. First, there are loads of transitional forms in the fossil record. Second, estimates based on mutation rates are usually made with a full awareness that mutation rates vary. Try reading the primary literature and you’ll see. Third, the isochron method of radiometric dating is actually pretty reliable. There are also many instances of dating with different parent/daughter isotope pairs giving consistent results. Here’s the bit you anticipated: go visit Talk Origins. Here is the URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/
If you are going to pick holes in any scientific data, make sure you are FULLY conversant with how that data was acquired and how it should be interpreted. If you have questions about evolutionary theory, that’s great. The Talk Origins website represents a lot of hard work by people trying to communicate what the scientific data mean and why science has reached the conclusions it has. Good luck.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Sorry I menat Talk Oriigins. I had a mental block over that site’s name, when I have some spare time I will try and have a look through.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:12 am
HawaiiArmenian: There is an important distinction to be made between perfectly respectable religious beliefs as held by the majority of religious people, and the pseudoscientific poppycock spouted by the IDers. A belief in God, by itself, is quite compatible with anything science can come up with. Even believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Saviour of Humanity is compatible with science, provided one does not take the stuff about miracles and rising from the dead literally. Conflict between science and religion only occurs when religion tries to do science’s job for it.
I’m not religious personally (spiritual, but not religious), but I feel that the reasonable religious people ought to have their case argued. As for the IDers, I don’t particularly consider it worth my while arguing with them. They are spouting a load of nonsense, and any reasonable person can see that.
‘You are correct in saying that evolution is not necessarily right. The point you are missing is that ID is necessarily wrong.’ — me
January 5th, 2006 at 4:42 am
hawaiiarmenian:
umm….given that i am religious and that i fully embrace science, does that mean that i don’t really exist?!?
maybe that’ll get me out of doing dishes tonight..;)
January 5th, 2006 at 6:53 am
> A belief in God, by itself, is quite compatible with anything science can come up with.
What kind of god are you talking about? A god that is taken as an objectively existing, conscious and immaterial entity is not compatible with science, as everything we know about consciousness tells us it cannot exist without a material substrate (i.e. dynamically interacting neural networks). Counterfactual claims require extraordinary evidence to overcome the established scientific theory.
Also the “God hypothesis” does not have any confirmed or credible predictive or explanatory power above and beyond what science can tell us about reality. Inserting God as a “creator of the universe” merely pushes the “problem of first cause” a notch back. If God created the universe, what created God? And if one’s god is a self-creator, isn’t it more parsimonious to consider the universe a decentralized self-contained system not in need of a divine directors’ floor? Redundant hypotheses, no matter how dressed up in ‘venerable tradition’, appear to me no more compatible with science than invisible pink unicorns and tachyonic rabbits on Pluto.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Here’s what William Dembski said after the Dover ruling:
“This galvanizes the Christian community,” said William Dembski, a leading proponent at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. “People I’m talking to say we’re going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.”
Despite his previous posturing that ID has nothing to do with religion, it is pretty clear what he, and others behind the ID movement, are really after. He must have forgotten to disguise his motives in the heat of the moment.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Science as a whole is under general attack from the Scary Right. Folks like you are out there on the front lines and I thank you. The controversy about evolution inspired a couple of guys in my band, Emerald Rose, to write an evolution song. You can hear it here. You need flash to play it.
http://www.emeraldrose.com/monkeys.htm . I think it will make you smile. Keep up the fight for truth.
Thanks
Arthur Hinds
Homo Sapiens
January 5th, 2006 at 9:46 am
In reference to what DaveC said:
>>>>>>
Here’s what William Dembski said after the Dover ruling:
“This galvanizes the Christian community,†said William Dembski, a leading proponent at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. “People I’m talking to say we’re going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.’’
Despite his previous posturing that ID has nothing to do with religion, it is pretty clear what he, and others behind the ID movement, are really after. He must have forgotten to disguise his motives in the heat of the moment.
>>>>>>
Yup, that one comment pretty much lays the ID-movement’s motives bare for all to see…
The group Americans United for Separation of Church & State, one of the plaintiffs in the Dover case, has a lot of interesting info on this on their blog:
http://blog.au.org/2005/12/poorly_designed.html
Among the interesting tidbits is the fact that some of the former Dover school board members may actually be brought up on perjury charges for lying on the stand. In addition, some politicians (namely Se. Rick Santorum) who were cuddling up to the creationists are now running full-tilt away from them.
Cheers – Mattus
January 5th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Like Bob and Leonn, I agree that a comparative religions class is what is needed. The problem is that it will never happen because extremists are afraid that kids might make up their own mind!
I have been involved in a few youth workshops where kids got together and presented FACTS about their religion or belief to the rest of the group. We did not allow any put-downs, “I’m right you’re wrong” stuff, we just allowed them to present facts then answer questions. The kids absolutely love this workshop, as it actually educates them as to what other belief systems are out there.
The problems begin when “Johnny” who was raised as a strict (insert religion or belief here) sees something that hits home with him, and he begins to question what he has been told his whole life. He goes home and tells his family that he no longer wants to participate in (insert again). The family goes berzerk, calls the organizers of the workshop and threatens to sue because they have “brainwashed” their child.
If this was a class at school, can you imagine the back lash?
I personally have no problem with people believing in what they want to beleive in, my problem comes when they want to force it on me or tell me that they are right and I am wrong.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:29 am
All who seek truth, not dogma, should know that it is not unreasonable to follow Christ, read the Holy Bible, and believe in scientific discovery(real science, not “special” science from the fringe). Whether you are a “Christian” or not, it is worth your time to check-out http://www.reasons.org. Veritas.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:19 am
As a staunch Christian, it always amazes me how “anti-religion” so many so called believers in “science” are.
ID hides a lot of religious fanaticism, true, but then again so does the theory of evolution. (Please note this is STILL called the “Theory”, not “Fact”). Why do I say this? Because many of the so called atheists in the world are religiously fanatic about their lack of belief in a god. If a person is truly an atheist (and I was one before coming a Christian) then he surely could not care less what other people think about a supreme being.
Many have said that comparitive religion classes should be held in schools, perhaps that should happen. Many have also said that ID and Theory of evolution should be taught in science classes. Excuse me; but aren’t they both philosophy rather than science? Shouldn’t they both rather be taught in the proposed comparitive religion classes? Or maybe even in a separate philosophy class?
Perhaps my not being American gives me a different perspective. In the school I went to in the UK we did have comparitive religion classes where both creationism and evolution were put forward as hypotheses, (not even upgraded to theory status).
Unfortunately so many in the world subscribe to the “what I believe is God given, what you believe is opinion” state of mind. Until we can allow each other the freedom to differ in our beliefs, we will have heated discussions, not only about ID and evolution, but about so many things that can lead to far more serious results that disagreement on a blog.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Although I strongly disagree with Religion, and think that a belief in a God(s) and Science are mutually exclusive of each other, I do not consider myself an Atheist. I’ll use the colloquial term of Agnostic. The fact is, it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existance of God (or Gods), and therefore, it’s philosophically impossible to reach a black-and-white conclusion. Therefore, instead of arguing over useless religious dogma, inclusion, and pedanticism, I’d rather spend my time working as a molecular biologist, using tools, called critical thinking and natural selection. For those who find comfort in religion, I will not take that cushion of faith away from you, but don’t expect me to feel sympathetic when you scream at science eroding the foundation of religion. As for attempting to be inclusive, involving both science and religion, that, is impossible. Religion is philosophical in nature and debate, whereas science is empirical. We’re comparing faith to critical thinking, and those are two completely different lines of reasoning. As an example, comparing a mammal to a rock is how I see the science vs. religion debate. There is no point, because those have different characteristics. One cannot be both a rock, and a mammal. There are those religious of you, who liken the comparison between science and religion to that of two similar things, like mammals and reptiles for example. But as stated earlier, it’s impossible for a side-by-side comparison, because by nature, science and religion are two distinct, mutually exclusive entities, that have NOTHING in common with each other, except perhaps, our attempt at explaining where we come from. In fact, it’s reasonable to suppose that the only reason those two topics are a part of each other is because of our existance. Without homo-sapiens, natural selection would still be running its course, while religion would remain a metaphysical nothingness.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Hi
As a Brit, who has been following the ID thing with much concern, I rejoice at the court decision. On this side of the pond ID has thankfully had, so far, not nearly as much impact as in America, but it is starting to make itself felt. Not far from where I live, in Sommerset, there is a place called ‘Noah’s Ark’. Ostensibly it is a kiddies farm and petting zoo, but the owner is using the whole opperation to promote Young Earth Creationism, Literal interpretation of Genesis, and ID. The scarry thing is, he describes himself as a Scientist and advertises the Ark as an Educational establishment. A challenge has been organised to revoke the charitable status, and thus tax-relief of the farm.
The UK does not have a written constitution, and with our current PM’s fondness for faith-based education, I have fears for the future!
January 5th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Dear Ron Place,
1. It is a logical fallacy to denote the lack of belief in a deity as just another belief system. The only thing it is good for is to infuriate atheists.
2. The fundamental difference between science and religion is not in what they say, but how they get to their respective statements about the world. Every scientific theory worth its salt must be falsifyable. This is not true about religion. If you don’t see the importance of this difference, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.
3. It is nice to have the freedom to believe whatever you want, but we have a responsibility to educate our children such that they can tell the difference between “knowledge” offered by religion and the knowledge obtained via the scientific method.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
To Ron Place and those of similar interests:
I became an Atheist simply because no god(s) exist. However, I do get into reading/researching religion to understand the psychology and social group needs of those of faith in religious beliefs (hundreds of different kinds). But I’d reather spend much more time reading and keeping abreast of the sciences, why? Science just keeps getting better and its applications have considerably improved our lives.
Religious faith beliefs have not changed whether pagan, polytheistic, or monotheistic and continue to preach intolerance, hate, war, destruction.
Yes, tools of science are used for war for more efficient ways of killling, but I am against war and killing and ecological destruction.
However, I just got done reading “Jesus–the Apocalyptic Prophet for the New Millennium” by Bard Emprham (?) and “Excavating Jesus” by Crossen and Reed. Yes, there was a historical Jewish Man named Yeshua (Jesus) that preached and taught and was tried and executed by Pilate. It was James, the Just, and Paul who continued to preach and eventually all the christian faith beliefs are based on Paul.
Well, I recommend reading the two suggested books. The better of the two is “Excavating Jesus”.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Ron Place, please tell me that you said:
Please note this is STILL called the “Theoryâ€, not “Factâ€
just to torque people up, because surely someone as knowledgeable and well read as yourself would be well aware that a scientific theory carries 99.9999999999999999999% of the weight of fact, and are well aware that the colloquial way you’ve suggested the term is used in that quote is known by everyone with an understanding of the English language to be incorrect.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Josi Said:
>As for the IDers, I don’t particularly consider it worth my while arguing with them. They are spouting a load of nonsense, and any reasonable person can see that.
You would think so. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case. I think too many people are taking it at face value (Hey, ID = God and I believe in God so I believe in ID) and not evaluating the content critically.
ID is playing on the general religious beliefs of the majority of Americans and the undercurrent of dissatisfaction over Evolution that was fueled as much by statements such as “Evolution means there is no role for God in creation,” as by the Biblical Literalists. It is difficult to avoid the metaphysical implications of Evolution, but it is the debate over those metaphysical implications that has given the Biblical Literalists so much power.
Dave Sewell Said:
>Like Bob and Leonn, I agree that a comparative religions class is what is needed. The problem is that it will never happen because extremists are afraid that kids might make up their own mind!
…
The problems begin when “Johnny†who was raised as a strict (insert religion or belief here) sees something that hits home with him, and he begins to question what he has been told his whole life. He goes home and tells his family that he no longer wants to participate in (insert again). The family goes berzerk, calls the organizers of the workshop and threatens to sue because they have “brainwashed†their child.
Yes, I’ve seen it happen, thankfully not firsthand. It’s a shame and ironic when even parents who support teaching “critical thinking” then get all worked up when their children apply those critical thinking skills to their religious beliefs. I think sometimes people don’t even know what critical thinking means, they just think it sounds good to make their children smart.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Ron Place Said:
>As a staunch Christian, it always amazes me how “anti-religion†so many so called believers in “science†are.
… Why do I say this? Because many of the so called atheists in the world are religiously fanatic about their lack of belief in a god. If a person is truly an atheist (and I was one before coming a Christian) then he surely could not care less what other people think about a supreme being.
Maybe it’s because we’re tired of having other people’s beliefs shoved in our faces. Maybe it’s because we’re tired of being called immoral and evil because we don’t believe in someone else’s chosen deity. Maybe it’s because we feel a bit edgy when the President of the United States tells us that we are not really Americans because we are atheists. Maybe if fewer people injected their religious beliefs into every conversation, we wouldn’t feel so defensive about it. Maybe if people were content to have their own silent prayer instead of expecting everyone to participate in a joint one at communal and government sanctioned events we wouldn’t feel the need to make a big deal of it. Maybe if people would refrain from making disparaging remarks like “There are no atheists in foxholes or hurricane zones,” we wouldn’t feel the need to point out how incorrect and insulting the remarks are. Maybe if we didn’t hear the word “God” or “Jesus” every five minutes, we wouldn’t flinch so hard.
>(Please note this is STILL called the “Theoryâ€, not “Factâ€).
Your ignorance is showing. We’ve been over this before here numerous times. This “theory not fact” canard is so worn out it needs a nap. “Evolution” is a comprehesive explanation. It is a “theory” in the same sense of “the Germ Theory of Disease”.
>Many have also said that ID and Theory of evolution should be taught in science classes. Excuse me; but aren’t they both philosophy rather than science? Shouldn’t they both rather be taught in the proposed comparitive religion classes? Or maybe even in a separate philosophy class?
I think perhaps you are getting confused over Evolution and the metaphysical implications of Evolution. Admittedly, it’s easy enough to do since many Evolution proponents do as well. I also think you might be using “Theory of Evolution” in the broad sense of a naturalist explanation for the origins of the universe and life, rather than in the more scientific sense as an explanation for the means and methods for the diversity of life. Evolution is an explanation of how life develops and changes. The origins problem has not been answered yet, though it is being studied scientifically.
>Unfortunately so many in the world subscribe to the “what I believe is God given, what you believe is opinion†state of mind. Until we can allow each other the freedom to differ in our beliefs, we will have heated discussions, not only about ID and evolution, but about so many things that can lead to far more serious results that disagreement on a blog.
That much we do agree on.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Wow, this is a blistering critique of the Discovery Institute. The article below from NCSE is just amazing… this should be distributed far and wide.
And to the creationists who keep posting here:
1. http://www.reasons.org is a blatantly ID-creationist site – give up any hope of appearing objective when you post that link. This is obvious when you see their “About Us” page where they say (among other things)…
“Founded in 1986, Reasons To Believe is an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior.”
Hmmm, yup – a ringing scientific endorsement if I ever saw one [sarc].
2. quit using the same tired old argument that one cannot both accept evolution and believe in god(s). It is a fallacy, and you know it. You probably know lots of people who are both religious and accept the science of evolution. Want proof that religious people accept evolution? Check out this link to the Clergy Letter Project, which is publishing a statement endorsed by over 10,000+ clergy nationwide that states they see no conflict between evolution and their religion…
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
Anyway, on to the article.
Cheers – Mattus
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Discovery Institute tries to “swift-boat†Judge Jones
by Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke
As predictable as sunup, the Discovery Institute reacted to their drubbing in Federal Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 20 December 2005) without the least introspection. One would have thought that after six weeks of testimony by both sides in the public debate (there is, of course, no scientific debate) about evolution and intelligent design, both sides would say, “Okay, we gave it our best shot,†and at least have the common decency to read the Court’s decision before spinmeistering.
Instead, the DI immediately tried to “swift-boat†the judge.
Before the electrons on the pdf of the judge’s decision were even cool, the DI released the following salvo:
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work,” said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.
In the DI’s lexicon, “activist†means someone who says or does things you don’t like: the ACLU, the NCSE, Americans United, and … oh. A Republican judge from central Pennsylvania.
Of course, the DI folks aren’t activists. They just sit in their think-tank, performing first-class research for the best scientific journals, waiting for the awards and accolades from the scientific and educational communities to come in. (So far, they’re still waiting for the awards, and we’re still waiting for the research.) Apparently it’s not “activist†for the Discovery Institute to send their own “Icons of Evolution†video to the Dover Area School Board (a video that DASB member William Buckingham apparently bullied teachers to watch – twice – and was clearly an inspiration to Buckingham in his various efforts to squelch the teaching of evolution in Dover. Apparently it’s not “activist†to send DI staff to Dover to counsel the school board on how to promote ID in science classes.
Now, wait. The DI staunchly maintains that it never said that ID should be taught as science. But it should be mentioned in science classrooms, apparently, as a stealth “alternative†to evolution. This is the sneaky approach. Don’t bother to establish ID as science in the scientific community; don’t bother to tell anyone you’re teaching a sectarian religious view; just slide it in on the QT. ID really is, as one observer noted, “the faith that dare not speak its name.†That’s now a finding of fact in Federal Court.
To Teach ID, or Not to Teach ID?
On the other hand, there is often a difference between what the DI does and what it says it does. Take, for instance, this passage from Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, by DI associates David K. DeWolf and Mark E. DeForrest, and the Director of the DI’s Center for Science and Culture, Stephen C. Meyer: “school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution — and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.â€
Hard to see where you’d fit that in, except in a science class.
It is also worth looking at what the Discovery Institute was telling its donors in 1999, based on the now-infamous “Wedge Strategy†document.
Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.
And yet, when this event finally occurred – in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2004, exactly five years after the 1999 Wedge Strategy – the Discovery Institute claimed that they did not support putting ID into science curricula, and furthermore they had never suggested such a thing.
“Activist†Judge John Jones III
Although the DI uses the same public relations firm as the “Swift Boat Veterans†did, they picked the wrong guy to keelhaul. Judge John E. Jones III is a churchgoer, a lifelong Republican, appointed to his Federal position by President George W. Bush. As a New York Times piece recently noted:
His supporters include Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and his mentor is Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania and homeland security secretary.
Arlen Specter, Tom Ridge, and Rick Santorum. Not exactly your typical liberal coalition. Wait a minute! Isn’t Santorum the one who tried to introduce Intelligent Design into the “No Child Left Behind†Act? Doesn’t the DI pull his strings when it comes to pronouncements on science and education? These are heavy hitters, well connected to the current Administration. From the outset, an impartial observer might have expected that Judge Jones would be predisposed toward the Bush-endorsed concept if ID. Let’s see what else the Times found out.
But Judge Jones is praised by people on both sides of the aisle as a man of integrity and intellect who takes seriously his charge to be above partisanship. He appears to define himself less by his party affiliation than by his connection to the Pennsylvania coal town where he still lives, and to a family that grabbed education as a rope to climb out of the anthracite mines, and never let go. Clifford A. Rieders, a lawyer in Williamsport who is past president of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, said he had found Judge Jones to be “moderate, thoughtful” and “universally well regarded.”
“I think that his connections are not so politicized, nor is he so ambitious that he would be influenced in any way by those kinds of considerations,” said Mr. Rieders, a Democrat.
Mr. Ridge called him a “renaissance man” and “the right kind of person to be presiding over a trial of such emotional and historic importance.” He added, “I don’t think he goes in with a point of view based on anything prior. I really don’t. I think he loves the challenge.”
And all this testimony came in before the decision was rendered.
The Judge saw ID collapse before him
The DI’s Dr. West went on to say of the Judge, “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.†Not so. The DI was not on trial here; the Judge was merely repeating statements of the defense’s own witnesses, including Drs. Behe and Minnich, who are fellows of the DI. They acknowledged under oath that ID cannot qualify as science unless the definition of science is completely changed to admit the supernatural. Behe acknowledged that under his definition, astrology would equally qualify as science. They admitted that ID is more plausible to those that believe in God – a rather peculiar feature of an allegedly scientific theory. They insisted that the “Designer†does not have to be supernatural, but were unable to come up with any credible account or hypothesis of what such a “natural Designer†would be, or how to test for its existence.
And this is after over a decade of research by the self-described “nation’s leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.â€
Not a single peer reviewed paper proposes any concrete test or advances any solid testable evidence regarding a Designer. Every major scientific organization in the nation has come out against ID, saying that it has no business masquerading as science. This week, Science magazine, the premier journal of American science, named Evolution as the Scientific Breakthrough of 2005, and specifically lambasted ID as non-scientific. Dr. Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, said in an interview with Reuters, “I think what arouses the ire of scientists (about intelligent design) is … the notion that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis. — It’s a hypothesis that’s not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea. That’s just not possible with a notion that’s as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is.”
For over a decade, the DI has claimed that their notion of ID deserves pride of place alongside conventional evolutionary theory. But they have refused to publish the peer-reviewed papers, to present their “research†at scientific conferences, to be held accountable in the scientific community on any terms whatsoever. This week they were held accountable in federal court. The results weren’t pretty for ID supporters. It’s hard to find a single sentence in the Judge’s 139-page decision that offers succor to the DI crowd. It’s even harder to find a place where his judgment erred with respect to the facts. Unless, of course, the defense’s scientific experts were not representing ID accurately.
Throughout the trial, Judge Jones let the attorneys on both sides draw out the testimony they wanted from their witnesses. He seldom intervened in the questioning, and did not sustain objections from either side unless they were rooted in correct procedural law. He frequently said, “well, this is a bench trial, so I’ll allow it†to let both sides present the fullest possible explication of their views. Both sides had the chance to put everything on the table. They chose their own witnesses; none were peremptorily excluded (though the defense fought ferociously to keep Barbara Forrest off the witness stand, knowing the damage she would do by revealing the religious origins of ID).
Witnesses for both sides had to speak under oath about their side of the case. The judge did not impugn the testimony of any expert witness, although he did have some choice words for the prevarications of some former members of the Dover School Board.
The DI cannot claim that ID didn’t have a fair opportunity to be represented on an equal footing with science in a public arena. It had its fair chance, but for mysterious reasons, most of the DI’s “expert witnesses†were withdrawn. Apparently there are too few ID supporters with expertise in the appropriate areas, because no one was offered by the defense to replace the no-shows.
Judge Jones was clearly as unimpressed as the scientific community is by the representations of the Discovery Institute’s witnesses for the defense. Michael Behe’s remonstrations about the scientific validity of ID were characterized as “mere assertions,†with no empirical evidence. The plaintiffs showed that Behe, who was on the stand for three days, was unaware of published, peer-reviewed evidence that demolished his favorite “irreducibly complex†notions such as the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting proteins. In fact, presented with a mountain of published work to the contrary, he merely sniffed that it was inadequate, though there was no evidence that he had even read it. The plaintiffs’ testimony about macroevolution, exaptation, natural selection, the fossil record, classification, and homology went completely unrebutted. Moreover, the Judge added (opinion, page 84), “the Court has been presented with no evidence†that either Defendants’ testifying experts or any other ID proponents have any expertise in these areas. Which we knew all along.
Based on all of this, Judge Jones ruled bluntly and clearly that ID is not science. ID proponents’ most common complaint is that Jones dared to rule on this larger scientific issue, rather than restricting himself to the religious purposes of the school board. They claim that it is not a judge’s role to interpret science. But judges make these kinds of decisions every day, when presented with expert testimony to work from. They do it every time they have to decide a case involving criminal forensics, medical malpractice, DNA fingerprinting or paternity tests, product liability, environmental issues, or a host of other issues that arise in a modern technological society. When the scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community are as clear as they were in this case, why should the judge refrain from ruling on the scientific status of ID?
In fact, Judge Jones really had no choice but to rule on whether or not ID was science. The plaintiffs asked him to rule on exactly this, and so did the defense. The Thomas More Legal Center’s chief counsel for the defense, Richard Thompson, acknowledged that like the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the defense had asked the judge to rule on the question of whether ID was science. They staked their whole case on the notion that ID was legitimate science, and that therefore teaching it had a legitimate secular purpose and secular effect, and this outweighed any religious goals that individual board members might have had. ID advocates can’t complain now, after the fact, that the judge exceeded his charge. He did exactly what both sides asked him to do. If the ID supporters didn’t take that brief more seriously, they should have.
The Party’s Over for the Discovery Institute
So where does Judge Jones’s decision leave ID? Rejected by the scientific community, rejected by organizations of science educators, and now rejected in Federal Court. What does the DI’s William Dembski say about that?
“I think the big lesson is, let’s go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion,” Dembski said in a New York Times interview. “The burden is on us to produce.”
Indeed. That’s what the scientists have been saying all along. And in the same Times article, Richard Thompson appeared to agree. “A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid. — It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that.”
He’s right. And one of these days, there may even be some research that convinces the scientific community that ID is testable and not purely religious. Until then, it cannot claim status as a scientific theory, and it does not belong in the science classroom – as Judge Jones and the scientific community both recognized.
The fact is, the Discovery Institute took a terrible beating in this trial. “Intelligent Design,†their main industry, which they have peddled relentlessly for over a decade as the Next Great Idea in science, was revealed as religion, not science at all. The DI’s “wedge strategy†was exposed and established as a crypto-fundamentalist Christian ideology of politics and social change. Their alleged “experts†withdrew, leaving the defense in confusion. Their amicus briefs were ignored by the Judge, and their attempt to append the “expert witness report†of Stephen Meyer, who had canceled his testimony, was angrily rebuffed. And after the trial, the DI’s Washington office head, Mark Ryland, publicly squabbled with the TMLC’s Richard Thompson, who claimed that the DI had promised support and then cut and run.
It’s over for the Discovery Institute. Turn out the lights. The fat lady has sung. The emperor of ID has no clothes. The bluff is over. Oh sure, they’ll continue to pump out the blather. They’ll find more funding, at least for a while, from some committed ideologue or another. But no one with any objectivity will take them seriously any longer as scientists. They had their fair chance, and they blew it.
And in the end, they couldn’t have done anything else. Because there is no science to ID; it’s just polemics. And now that’s been settled in Federal Court.
Copyright Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke 2006
January 4, 2006
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/127_discovery_institute_tries_to__1_4_2006.asp
January 5th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
I use to respect the creator of this site. Now I sadly shake my head at peoples glee at seeing religion cast away. So much for teaching kids ALL arguments. Sounds kind of hypocritical from people who claim to have open minds to examine all ideas. Sad sad indeed. I’m very disgusted.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
During a solar eclipse, why does the size of the sun and the size of the moon appear the same inside of the human eye? Was the human eye and our Sun and Moon created by the same force (be it evolution, or intelligent design)?
Nature does not need evolution or God to put on such a beautiful show….
January 5th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Ganador, did you not read anything I said? The promotion of ID is the antithesis of religious freedom. I mentioned the Constitution and the 1st Amendment specifically!
And teaching kids all arguments is not what school is about. Should we teach them that Zeus is a viable alternative to Allah, or God, or whomever? Should we teach them geocentrism as an alternative to heliocentrism?
And where did I say I was casting away all religion? In fact, I said quite the opposite, demanding freedom of religion and freedom from it. I think you are reading your own prejudices into what I wrote.
January 6th, 2006 at 4:56 am
ba, you are completely right. what most of these christians who are so vociferous about gettting id taught in science classrooms fail to grasp is that once you open the door to teaching a religious concept as scientific fact, then it will come down to the will of the majority of people which religious concept is the one taught.
most school curriculum decisions are decided on the state and local level. as a christian, i would not want my child taught the hindu creation story as scientific fact, just because i might happen to live in an area predominantly hindu (not even mentioning that i don’t believe in a literal interpretation of genesis, and wouldn’t want that taught either).
i’m sure there are even some fundamentalist christians who, if they really looked at what the “id theory” postulates, would have serious problems with it since it would likely end up describing an earth much older than 10,000 or so years as well.
i don’t know how many other religious folk like me read your site (or, for that matter, listen to penn gillette’s new radio show – free plug!
), but know that there are far more reasonable religious people out there than internet message boards would suggest…
January 6th, 2006 at 11:31 am
To: MattusMaximus
Yes, http://www.reasons.org is blatantly Christian and blantantly old-earth creationist. I wasn’t trying to hide that. However, they are not ID for many of the same reasons you would cite. If you explore their website a little more you will see that they DO care about scientific integrity.
Also, we all have our own worldviews and biases. However, it is rational to be Christian and be objective. Faith is not blind for those seeking truth, not dogma.
Just as many Christians have misconceptions about science, etc., many non-Christians have many misconceptions about the Bible, etc. What do you think? Sorry, if we disagree on this.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Ganador Said:
>I use to respect the creator of this site. Now I sadly shake my head at peoples glee at seeing religion cast away. So much for teaching kids ALL arguments. Sounds kind of hypocritical from people who claim to have open minds to examine all ideas. Sad sad indeed. I’m very disgusted.
I do take personal glee at seeing religion cast away – not just Christianity, but any religion. That’s because I think religion is deceptive and conformist and dogmatic and nonsensical (with all that supernatural stuff). But that has nothing to do with the Dover case or ID. The Dover case is specifically about government pressure to teach a particular religious agenda. That is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. It is a blatant violation of the intent of the founders of this country, who were very clear on numerous occasions that freedom of conscience requires that the government take a neutral stance on religion. A neutral stance means the government cannot advocate for any particular religion, nor can it advocate for or against religion in general. Pushing a Christian agenda (and a somewhat narrow one at that) is not acceptable.
In order to determine whether the Dover school board was pushing a Christian agenda or offerring valid alternative science, the court had to evaluate the history and merits of ID directly. Upon doing so, testimony from witnesses from both sides proved that ID is a sectarian agenda, and thus not valid science.
Upholding the Constitution is not casting religion away. It is preventing the advocation of one particular religion.
As for teaching kids ALL arguments, are we supposed to teach them that the Earth is flat? That elves live in forests? That disease is not caused by germs, but by being bad? That homeopathy is just as valid as chemistry? That Africans are lesser peoples because they are descended from Ham? That the Egyptians managed to cross the Atlantic and colonize South America long before Europe began to form cities? That the Holocaust has been exaggerated and the Nazis really only killed a couple hundred Jews and social misfits? Just because there are different ideas doesn’t mean all ideas are equally valid and of equal worth.
Grant Miller Said:
>Just as many Christians have misconceptions about science, etc., many non-Christians have many misconceptions about the Bible, etc.
I suppose many non-Christians have many misconceptions about the Bible. But then, many Christians have many misconceptions about the Bible, too, so it isn’t really meaningful. How, you ask? Well, they tend to get them from the people teaching them about the Bible. You don’t believe me? Consider that Baptists think Catholics have misconceptions about the Bible, and Catholics think Methodists have misconceptions, and Methodists think Jehovah’s Witnesses have misconceptions, and Jehovah’s Witnesses think everyone else is wrong. Also consider that many Christians are unaware of the history of “the Bible”, and how it came to be written, collected, translated, and approved.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Irishman says:
Maybe it’s because we’re tired of having other people’s beliefs shoved in our faces. Maybe it’s because we’re tired of being called immoral and evil because we don’t believe in someone else’s chosen deity. Maybe it’s because we feel a bit edgy when the President of the United States tells us that we are not really Americans because we are atheists. . . .
Thank you Irishman! That was well put. Yes, it explains a lot about why non-religious people can become unhappy about an environment where it’s considered commonplace to hear Christian religious comments and extraordinary to hear anything to the contrary, where nonreligious sentiments are tolerated so long as they’re not voiced too loud.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Grant Miller says:
“Yes, http://www.reasons.org is blatantly Christian and blantantly old-earth creationist. I wasn’t trying to hide that. However, they are not ID for many of the same reasons you would cite. If you explore their website a little more you will see that they DO care about scientific integrity.”
Hmmm… so Grant *admits* that the website he directed us to is, in his own words, “blatantly old-earth creationist” — yet in the next breath he states that “they DO care about scientific integrity.”
Hunh?! Sounds like hogwash to me… Folks, this is one of the most goofy contradictions I’ve ever seen posted to *any* blog or message board, but it is par for the course for the creationists. They’ll try to rope you in by constantly talking about how they really do care about science, right up until the point where they insist on literal interpretation of this and that in the Bible.
It took me about 5 seconds to see through Grant Miller’s arguments here. And what’s worse is that he did it in his own words — I suppose it’s true about what they say can happen when you give some people enough rope. They hang themselves… just like what happened in Dover, PA.
And one last thing — how does Grant Miller suddenly go from a discussion of “scientific integrity” directly into talking about “misconceptions about the Bible”? I thought this was about *science*, not religion, right?
As for the Bible, I’ve studied it extensively for many years — its writings, its origins, its history, and how it has been edited repeatedly and interpreted every which way over the centuries. I must agree with Irishman when he states that there are a great number of Christians who are completely ignorant of the historical nature of the Bible. For those of you who are interested in a very good historical background & scholarly analysis of the Bible (without the proselytizing), check out these resources as a good place to start:
“Secret Origins of the Bible” by Tim Callahan and
the following lectures on CD by Dr. Bart Ehrman (available via The Teaching Company at http://www.teach12.com)
“The Historical Jesus”
“From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity”
“Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication”
And here’s a good website which points out numerous flaws in a literal interpretation of the Bible (like that pushed at http://www.reasons.org and by Grant Miller) by exposing the fallacies and contradictions therein…
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
But now we’re talking about religion again… oh well, I suppose that’s how Grant Miller wanted it, seeing as how he made the magical transition from real science to religiously-based poppycock “science” by trying to convince us that groups pushing old-earth creationism are actually concerned about scientific integrity.
Yup, that and he also has some swampland for sale in Arizona – cheap
Cheers — Mattus
January 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
bob woodington says:
), but know that there are far more reasonable religious people out there than internet message boards would suggest…”
“i don’t know how many other religious folk like me read your site (or, for that matter, listen to penn gillette’s new radio show – free plug!
Exactly right. I will be the first to admit that many religious people are not 1) “stupid about their beliefs” and/or 2) intentionally deceptive like some of the creationists who’ve posted here.
Despite my atheism, I have many close friends and colleagues from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, and we get along wonderfully. Oh yeah, and they *all* see no contradiction between religion and the science of evolution, just like the 10,000+ signatories to the Clergy Letter Project…
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
The ID-creationist folks (like those at http://www.reasons.org and the Discovery Institute) are liars… they lie about their true motives, they lie about science, and (probably a worse sin to the religious) they lie about religion too. I have very little respect for them in this regard — to them the ends justify the means, and they have no respect for truth, honesty, or rational thinking. They merely seek to assert their authority by any (legal) means possible, including lying — oops, perjury *is* a crime. You know, like how some of those former Dover school board members (creationists) could face perjury charges for lying to the judge in open court. Which Commandment did they violate there?
But I have great respect for those who take their heartfelt religious beliefs (though I don’t accept them and I find them confusing and illogical) and strive to reconcile them with the reality of science. Kudos to them.
Cheers – Mattus
January 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
MattusMaximus wrote: “the lectures on CD by Dr. Bart Ehrman (available via The Teaching Company at http://www.teach12.com)” and other references.
I also have recommended them.
I would like you to either check out from your public library or buy a copy and share with you friends:
“Excavating Jesus–Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts” by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, 2001, HarperSanFrancisco, ISBN 0-06-0611634-2, paperback $19.95.
Then give a review.
Another quirk of these blogs is that Christians or Athiests are not defining themselves as to their own personal philosophies. Why are you a Christian or an Atheist?
As I have stated numerously, I am an Atheist simply because their are no gods/goddesses. I have no religious faith beliefs or dogmas at all. Science is a self-correcting and expanding human knowledge field that, basically, is Universal in it’s applications. Religions and religious faith beliefs are strictly human centered–no other species on planet Earth share religious faith and dogma beliefs but all are affected by natural laws and effects.
Read BABlog or go to ScienceDaily or SpaceDaily or read Science, Discover, Scientific American, Science Weekly, New Scientist, etc.. There are new discoveries made all the time and our scientific knowledge base keeps improving and expanding.
So, if you are going to identify yourself as a person of a particular faith or dogma belief, then plese define yourself so that we can then “know” what you mean by “Christian”.
Any Athiest who states “i do not believe in God or a god” is more of an agnostic than an Atheist.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
MattusMaximus Said:
>They merely seek to assert their authority by any (legal) means possible, including lying — oops, perjury *is* a crime. You know, like how some of those former Dover school board members (creationists) could face perjury charges for lying to the judge in open court. Which Commandment did they violate there?
Well, there is that silly one about not bearing false witness. It’s often construed as not lying, but even in the narrowest definition I think it still applies to court testimony.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:45 am
Dear Phil -
Have you seen this ?
Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article
from:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm
Cordially,
Paul F.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I’ve been waiting patiently for some wag to hail SF author David Brin as the “true prophet” of ID for his series of Uplift novels. In the milieu of these yarns, all intelligent species in this galaxy and its neighbors for the past several billions of years have been “uplifted” to sentience by an already-sophont “patron” race which then requires a hundred-thousand-year period of indenturement to repay that favor. It is an accepted scientific fact that it is virtually impossible for a species to evolve intelligent self-awareness “naturally”.
Doesn’t that fit the criteria for Intelligent Design.
(And to the nitpickers: humanity is assumed to be a “wolfling” race whose patrons abandoned them millennia ago, which is a serious offense in Galactic civilization. And while the long-gone Progenitors, the founding race (or races) of the Uplift culture, are revered for their accomplishments, no orthodox member of that society thinks to ask: “So who uplifted THEM?”)