Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 9:50 AM
30 online now:
1.61803, DWIII, edge, FLRW, Heathen, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,145 Year: 5,182/19,786 Month: 1,304/873 Week: 200/460 Day: 16/29 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 1 of 38 (264861)
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


Oh brother...

'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?

Thu Dec 1, 6:41 AM ET

The issue: Should public schools teach "intelligent design," the theory that the universe and its life forms are so complex that a higher cause must have been involved in making them? (Related: Read previous columns)

Bob: Cal, I'm going to stray from the consensus liberal line on the issue of intelligent design. The Dover, Pa., school board had a good reason to allow the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in the school system's science classes. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that evolution is the sole explanation for all living things, these scientists have yet to prove the theory conclusively. Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will.

Cal: What I find curious about this debate, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Kansas and throughout the country, is that so many scientists and educators are behaving like fundamentalist secularists. Only they will define science. They alone will decide which scientific theories and information will be taught to students. That sounds like mind control to me, Bob. If their science is so strong on the issue of origins, why not let the arguments supporting intelligent design into the classroom where it can be debunked if it can't be defended? You liberals are always accusing us conservatives of censorship. It sounds like your side has picked up the disease on this one.

Bob: One reason is that your side insists on making this debate about religion. I believe there is a good science debate here. Many people believe that the Christian community is using intelligent design as a backdoor for teaching creationism. If not, this issue would not be in the federal courts in a constitutional argument over separation of church and state. But there are a number of serious scientists who believe in intelligent design as a theory of evolution based on scientific argument.

Cal: Exactly right, Bob. And many of them have advanced degrees from the same universities from which the evolutionary scientists have graduated. And what about some of the greatest names in science - men like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler and Galileo? Charles Darwin was a devout Christian as a young man, but his religious views - like his scientific ones - "evolved" as he got older. By the time he wrote The Origin of Species, he was as good a practical secularist as any non-believer. Was the later Darwin smarter than the combined wisdom of those scientists who believed the universe did not come into existence by chance but had a creator behind it? Readers can Google "scientists and intelligent design" for the names of many more scientists who believed someone was behind what we see in the sky with our eyes and beyond through a telescopic eye.

Bob: Good, now you're talking science, not theology.

Cal: But I doubt the secular fundamentalists and their judicial friends will ever allow this debate to occur. That's why I support, for this reason and many others, pulling conservative and Christian kids out of public schools and placing them in private or home-school environments where they can get a real and truthful education.

Bob: Cal, if you encourage Christian believers to take their kids out of public schools, then it's likely intelligent design will never get a fair hearing and forever be seen as Biblical creation only. That's not fair to those who want competing theories to Darwin introduced as a scientific debate, not a theological food fight.

Cal: Fair point, Bob, but the primary responsibility of parents is to their children. If they are teaching them one thing at home and in their place of worship, and they are subsidizing with their taxes the teaching of conflicting views - which are taught as truth in the government schools - they are undermining the very things in which they believe. School choice would settle a lot of this, but those politically beholden to the National Education Association aren't about to allow parents the freedom to choose where to educate their kids.

Bob: Some public school systems may well be hostile to Christian dogma, but most are looking at intelligent design as a church-state issue, and until told otherwise by the federal courts will continue to keep the debate out of science classes. You can't blame them. Nearly the entire school board in Dover was defeated over this very issue in the last election. Pulling Christian kids from public schools only helps the "Darwin only" science crowd.

Cal: Scientists have accepted theories in the past that proved to be wrong. Science is supposed to be about openness to competing ideas. But the very people who want to impose evolution as the only scientific explanation for life on the planet violate this basic tenet of science when it comes to intelligent design.

Bob: True, but these scientists will say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close. Well, of course it doesn't because no other theory has been studied seriously. This crowd has a vested interest in proving Darwin correct, and anything else is dismissed out of hand. This from the same scientific community that for years believed the universe was shrinking. They have since discovered the Big Bang and now believe the universe is expanding.

Cal: You're making my point, Bob. Science advances by considering all theories and evidence, not by conspiring to teach only one to the exclusion of others. This is Flat Earth Society thinking.

Bob: But if this debate continues to be viewed as an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get their beliefs into the public schools, then intelligent design will never get a fair hearing, and it deserves one. The scientists who view intelligent design as a science, not a dogma, believe that the smallest building blocks of life are so complex that they couldn't simply evolve from amoebas. That's about as far as I can go in my understanding of all this.

Cal: What has been set up is a false premise: that the Bible and science are in conflict and that nothing in Scripture can be tested scientifically. That is just not true. But when God asks Job - "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" - the question should make scientists humble about their certainties concerning the origins of the earth and of human life.

Bob: There you go again mixing science with the Bible. We both want to see intelligent design introduced into the scientific debate. Can't we leave the Bible out of this while we're trying to convince the public that this is a debate about science? It's a means-ends issue, Cal.

Cal: Some Christians are trying to water down what they really believe for the wrong reasons. It would be better for them to exit the government schools so they can teach their beliefs without compromise. For those who remain - like you - and want intelligent design taught alongside evolution, why not have a series of televised debates so the public could make up its own mind?

Bob: That's a start. The scientific community has gone out of its way to depict intelligent design as a religious view. Most people have no idea that serious scientists believe there is a strong case for intelligent design. These scientists have been denied a forum, and a series of public debates would be educational and give the intelligent design researchers a chance to tell their side.

Cal: Surely C-SPAN would carry the debate if the scientists were prominent enough. Anyone opposing the debate would be rightly labeled a censor and anti-academic freedom. That should make the liberals choke. Sound like a good idea to you, Bob (except the part about choking liberals)?

Bob: I'm all for it. I just wonder if the Darwinists will show up.

Cal: Maybe we can offer them some bananas as an incentive. As they eat them, they can contemplate their heritage.

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckelis a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.

SOURCE


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 12-02-2005 5:15 AM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 12-02-2005 6:00 AM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2005 6:08 AM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 01-19-2006 4:15 AM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 01-19-2006 8:51 AM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 12 by mick, posted 01-19-2006 4:19 PM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 27 by kalimero, posted 04-17-2006 9:21 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
JustinC
Member (Idle past 2953 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 2 of 38 (264869)
12-01-2005 6:47 PM


I don't understand how people so ignorant about a subject can speak so authoritatively about it. Do they have no humility?
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 9:40 PM JustinC has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 3 of 38 (264912)
12-01-2005 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by JustinC
12-01-2005 6:47 PM


Apparently the more ignorant the more arrogant.

That article was so inane it really is quite embarrassing. I have to wonder if perhaps it is a parody.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by JustinC, posted 12-01-2005 6:47 PM JustinC has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 38 (264962)
12-02-2005 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


Well that was depressing, or was it funny? Abbot and Costello did it better in any case.

Who dominated the land first?

Dinosaur.

Dino saw're who dominated the land first?

No that was Darwin.

If Darwin was a man and a man saw who dominated the land first then men must have dominated the land first.

No Apes came before men.

Aaaaaaabbbbbboootttt! Then why are the apes still around?

Hahahahahhhahahhhahaha!!!!!

AbE: Oh yeah, I'm not sure what all scientists fear, but I personally fear wholly ignorant and science illiterate people discussing science as if they are equal in knowledge to a scientist and trying to change what it is through political fiat, like the poor man's version of abbot and costello from your OP quote.

This message has been edited by holmes, 12-02-2005 05:18 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 6:13 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2204 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 38 (264966)
12-02-2005 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


Science as a spectator sport with traditional loudmouthed commentating duo, there's a novel approach.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 6:13 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 6 of 38 (264967)
12-02-2005 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


Scientists fear a general public that is so scientifically illiterate that they think the above article is in any way representative of science.

Really it is the general public that should be afraid. If the radical right successfully starts teaching caricatures of science as science, then the US will lose its lead scientifically and economically. Our science establishment is already completely foreign dependent (like our dependency on foreign oil) because most Americans are too poorly educated to work as scientists.

Once those foreigners start staying home (which is already happening), the US will be completely screwed since it will take generations to reverse the willful stupidity being foisted on the education system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 6:13 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 04-09-2006 6:13 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 2953 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 7 of 38 (265043)
12-02-2005 12:34 PM


quote:
Cal: Exactly right, Bob. And many of them have advanced degrees from the same universities from which the evolutionary scientists have graduated. And what about some of the greatest names in science - men like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler and Galileo? Charles Darwin was a devout Christian as a young man, but his religious views - like his scientific ones - "evolved" as he got older. By the time he wrote The Origin of Species, he was as good a practical secularist as any non-believer. Was the later Darwin smarter than the combined wisdom of those scientists who believed the universe did not come into existence by chance but had a creator behind it? Readers can Google "scientists and intelligent design" for the names of many more scientists who believed someone was behind what we see in the sky with our eyes and beyond through a telescopic eye.

Bob: Good, now you're talking science, not theology.



I couldn't help but read this again...I think it might be a parody, as holmes indicated.

How can what Cal said be considered "science" in any way shape or form? Since when is "science" considered to be the teleological views of 17th century physicists? Or since when is "science" any view held by those practicing science? Cal just spewed a great big "argument from authority" and Bob says, "Now you're talking science."

Most of what they say truely doesn't make any sense; i just don't understand.


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jman, posted 01-17-2006 7:38 PM JustinC has not yet responded

    
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 38 (279750)
01-17-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by JustinC
12-02-2005 12:34 PM


The bad old days....
What scientists fear is a general re-emergence of the "dark ages". Do we remember them? Yes! Those were the days when the Church rose up to dominate science. It's scary. Have we learned nothing?

There is no voice louder than the voice of ignorance.
Those who know the least expound the most.

Here's the kicker folks. I believe in ID and Creation but I do so without a religious coloring. Vision is so much more unrestricted from a great height and the mind is an organ of perception but to put it to best use it must be unfettered by dogmatic bias.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by JustinC, posted 12-02-2005 12:34 PM JustinC has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 9 of 38 (279964)
01-19-2006 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


I'm stunned. Really depressing that this still goes on in a first world country....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 6:13 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 38 (279970)
01-19-2006 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


roxrcool

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckelis a liberal Democratic strategist

:eek:Holy crap! A columnist and a strategist, both showing us the error of our ways, what can we do but fold before their blistering logic and expertise on the matter? AIG, here I come.:laugh:

Methinks there is not much in the way of threat in this duo.


But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 6:13 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 38 (279979)
01-19-2006 9:57 AM


Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel
Fox News contributors both.

This message has been edited by berberry, 01-19-2006 08:58 AM


  
mick
Member (Idle past 3096 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 12 of 38 (280054)
01-19-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
12-01-2005 6:13 PM


That's a classic example of what TV pundits think a "debate" looks like - two people who agree with each other waffling on without challenge to their beliefs.

Depressing, not funny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 12-01-2005 6:13 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 38 (280060)
01-19-2006 4:58 PM


what do scientists fear?
Truth?
Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by JonF, posted 01-19-2006 6:24 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 16 by bobbins, posted 01-19-2006 10:44 PM randman has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4562
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 14 of 38 (280081)
01-19-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
01-19-2006 4:58 PM


Re: what do scientists fear?
No.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 01-19-2006 4:58 PM randman has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 15 of 38 (280105)
01-19-2006 9:13 PM


So this piece was serious journalism... truly frightening.
    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019