| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"human" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 06:50:37 PM |
| Object: |
Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/nov05/368150.asp
Letters to the editor:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/submit.asp
"Scientists, being a contentious lot, would tear apart any idea that was
not backed up by evidence, so any finding to contradict another scientist
would be seized upon. ... Scientists are not all pure. Many have altered
results to fit their interest in money or other enticements."
Don't pass intelligent design off as science By Joseph Geck, of Waukesha
is a self-employed international consultant.
His e-mail address is
Posted: Nov. 4, 2005
There's a storm of controversy headed for Wisconsin, and it involves the
Bible.
The Bible has always been controversial. That is why there are so many
distinct sects of Judaism and Christianity. Even in Genesis, there are two
distinct stories of creation told with different chronologies and
different emphasis. It's as if the author or authors were struggling with
differing opinions.
Around the 1920s, a fundamentalist movement gained momentum in the United
States, teaching that Genesis is to be taken literally.
Having been raised Catholic and still practicing, I know that literal
interpretation of the Bible had throughout history been a problem because
of differences in stories and chronology. One of the greatest
embarrassments for the Catholic Church was the pressure on Galileo for
publishing that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. Some say
that the Bible doesn't claim the Earth is the center. However, an
Earth-centric universe is Biblical.
As science progressed, discoveries made it more difficult for educated
people to believe literal interpretations of Genesis. In the 19th century,
developments in geology, archeology and astronomy challenged literalism
before Darwin.
After Darwin, biology and all its sub-branches would never be the same.
Discoveries in science since Darwin further verified the principles he set
forth. Scientists, being a contentious lot, would tear apart any idea that
was not backed up by evidence, so any finding to contradict another
scientist would be seized upon. So Darwin's propositions stood the test of
time.
Over the years, there has been a crazy debate over creationism. Reputable
scientists have now backed away from debating because no amount of
evidence will change the mind of the creationists. Having been
proselytized by fundamentalists, I have read the creationist literature
and found it full of inaccuracy to the point that I question the authors'
motives.
For years, creationists have been saying there are serious scientific
questions on the validity of evolution. There are none. For years, they
have tried to get creationism into biology textbooks. Most school boards
have seen the fallacy in this. This is putting religion into science
curriculum.
Now there is a new movement and a well-funded foundation to support the
introduction of intelligent design into biology curriculum. Intelligent
design is "creationism lite." It doesn't say that evolution is bunk or
that the Bible is literally true, but "questions" around evolution are
debated. Soon school boards around the country, including Wisconsin, will
be subject to the intelligent design marketing campaign.
I have no problem with people who want to believe in the literal
interpretation of Genesis, even though I wonder which version they think
is the true one. Freedom of religion guarantees their rights of belief. I
have no problem with private schools teaching intelligent design as part
of a religion class or even of comparative religion taught in the public
schools.
I have a huge problem with passing intelligent design off as science.
It is bad enough that the United States is ranked behind other countries
in science education. It is bad enough that the science literacy of the
general public is such that we fund programs without measuring results,
that astrology is believed and that gambling is so popular. It is bad
enough that science is taught as merely a body of facts or mathematical
models without enough emphasis on the scientific method. Now into this mix
throw a little religion into science class.
President Bush has endorsed intelligent design. Of course, his
administration has thought nothing of altering the results of scientific
studies that don't fit his worldview. Isn't there something about truth in
the Bible?
Good science doesn't have a worldview. It is an impartial look at reality
that is constantly debated using specific methodology and logic.
I don't want creationist religion taught to my grandchildren, especially
passed off as science. Scientists are not all pure. Many have altered
results to fit their interest in money or other enticements. But beware
the true believer.
Joseph Geck of Waukesha is a self-employed international consultant. His
e-mail address is geckj@ @execpc.com
From the Nov. 5, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Have an
opinion on this story? Write a letter to the editor or start an online
forum.
-----------------
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
|
|
| User: "Skeets" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
06 Nov 2005 07:33:40 PM |
|
|
ID is not science - it is philosophy.
however, you should also be arguing against the over teaching of
macro-evolution.
iow, stop the pro macro-evolution spin campaign and teach a balanced
view of evolution - wriinkles and all.
for example, stop faking the diagrams and drawings shown in textbooks.
stop avoiding the serious issues that don't support the theory...
dont' make excuses for the lack of fossil evidence - just explain the
fact that the fossils don't currently support this theory beyond a
reasonable doubt.
iow, let's have an unbiased version of macro-evolution taught.
as such, you shouldn't even call it macro-evolution - that is the
answer. the unsupported answer is also philosphy.
science should study the evidence.
science should teach the study of origins... and go over the evidence.
the evidence that supports macro-evolution should be honestly taught,
as should the evidence that seems paradoxical to macro-evolution.
then again, i'm an realist in addition to an idealist - i know this
will never happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh M." |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
07 Nov 2005 01:46:33 AM |
|
|
"Skeets" <skillet3232@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131305620.341819.191540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
ID is not science - it is philosophy.
Bad philosophy at that. But since you think it's philosophy, you agree that
it shouldn't be taught in science classes, right?
however, you should also be arguing against the over teaching of
macro-evolution.
You should go read about it.
iow, stop the pro macro-evolution spin campaign and teach a balanced
view of evolution - wriinkles and all.
for example, stop faking the diagrams and drawings shown in textbooks.
I'm baffled by the ignorance in this comment. Do you happen to have the
"real" diagrams and drawings?
stop avoiding the serious issues that don't support the theory...
dont' make excuses for the lack of fossil evidence- just explain the
fact that the fossils don't currently support this theory beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Typical creationist drivel. You don't really think you're saying anything
that hasn't been said by other ignorant creationists, do you?
iow, let's have an unbiased version of macro-evolution taught.
Then get rid of your bias.
as such, you shouldn't even call it macro-evolution - that is the
answer.
What should it be called, then?
the unsupported answer is also philosphy.
What?
science should study the evidence.
science should teach the study of origins... and go over the evidence.
Um, that's called evolutionary biology. Read up on it.
the evidence that supports macro-evolution should be honestly taught,
as should the evidence that seems paradoxical to macro-evolution.
then again, i'm an realist in addition to an idealist - i know this
will never happen.
Your so-called realism goes out the window when talking about science, I
suppose.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
07 Nov 2005 11:53:28 AM |
|
|
One visit to Cudahy and you'll see there is no such thing as "intelligent"
design.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " krp" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
07 Nov 2005 11:47:19 AM |
|
|
One visit to Cudahy and you'll see there is no such thing as "intelligent"
design.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
06 Nov 2005 08:32:46 PM |
|
|
then again, i'm an realist in addition to an idealist - i know this
will never happen.
Having read a number of your posts I would say you're not a realist.
If you were a realist then you would absolutely disallow religion to
encroach upon the method for which you discern fact from fiction. A
realist demands that the universe be taken litterally.
When a realist examines a blade of grass he sees that it is green,
soft, it has a long leaf, a bitter taste, a shallow white root,
chloroplasts, etc... He also sees that is related to other grasses.
He sees that those grasses are related to a larger group of plants. He
sees that those plants are related to all plants that have ever
existed. He draws lines between pieces of empirical evidence that he
can have a certain level of trust in.
If a piece of evidence ever came to light that was not empirically
derived (evidence in scripture for example) or a line of reasoning were
suggested that led him to a conclusion that could never be tested (the
idea that man was created for example), then he must dismiss these
claims out-of-hand becuase they cannot be tested and therefore cannot
be trusted.
Science is a realist. But you don't have to be a scientist to
understand the importance of the integrity of science and why, for all
of our sakes, science must remain to be a staunch realist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
06 Nov 2005 08:54:55 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 6 Nov 2005 11:33:40 -0800, "Skeets"
<skillet3232@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
ID is not science - it is philosophy.
however, you should also be arguing against the over teaching of
macro-evolution.
Why? It's a fact.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
09 Nov 2005 12:43:37 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 11:33:40 -0800,
Skeets <skillet3232@yahoo.com> wrote:
ID is not science - it is philosophy.
And it's bad philosophy too.
however, you should also be arguing against the over teaching of
macro-evolution.
Why? We know it happens.
iow, stop the pro macro-evolution spin campaign and teach a balanced
view of evolution - wriinkles and all.
Why should we teach about a wrinkle that doesn't exist?
for example, stop faking the diagrams and drawings shown in textbooks.
Is this yet another tired reference to Haeckel's drawings?
stop avoiding the serious issues that don't support the theory...
dont' make excuses for the lack of fossil evidence - just explain the
fact that the fossils don't currently support this theory beyond a
reasonable doubt.
There's plenty of fossil evidence, but the molecular evidence is the
clincher.
iow, let's have an unbiased version of macro-evolution taught.
I agree. "Genetic evidence points directly to a tree of life, and here's
some nifty fossil progressions to back it up."
as such, you shouldn't even call it macro-evolution - that is the
answer. the unsupported answer is also philosphy.
Frankly, I doubt you know what science or philosphy is.
science should study the evidence.
science should teach the study of origins... and go over the evidence.
the evidence that supports macro-evolution should be honestly taught,
as should the evidence that seems paradoxical to macro-evolution.
then again, i'm an realist in addition to an idealist - i know this
will never happen.
You're not a realist. You're just ignorant.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp^" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
09 Nov 2005 10:57:45 AM |
|
|
If there were such a thing as intelligent design there'd be NO Hales
Corners.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " krp^" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
09 Nov 2005 10:56:21 AM |
|
|
If there were such a thing as intelligent design there'd be NO Hales
Corners.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
06 Nov 2005 07:58:10 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 11:33:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Skeets" <skillet3232@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1131305620.341819.191540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
ID is not science - it is philosophy.
however, you should also be arguing against the over teaching of
macro-evolution.
iow, stop the pro macro-evolution spin campaign and teach a balanced
view of evolution - wriinkles and all.
for example, stop faking the diagrams and drawings shown in textbooks.
Are there such today?
stop avoiding the serious issues that don't support the theory...
dont' make excuses for the lack of fossil evidence - just explain the
fact that the fossils don't currently support this theory beyond a
reasonable doubt.
The fossil evidence is quite consistent with the theory and, along with
a wide variety of other evidence, supports it quite well. I don't
understand your comment.
iow, let's have an unbiased version of macro-evolution taught.
What do you have in mind.
as such, you shouldn't even call it macro-evolution - that is the
answer. the unsupported answer is also philosphy.
Who calls it that?
science should study the evidence.
It does. That is how it came up with the theory of evolution by
variation and natural selection. The evidence that has been gathered
since it was first proposed has helped improve the theory and support
it.
science should teach the study of origins... and go over the evidence.
It does.
the evidence that supports macro-evolution should be honestly taught,
as should the evidence that seems paradoxical to macro-evolution.
Do you have an example?
then again, i'm an realist in addition to an idealist - i know this
will never happen.
Are you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
07 Nov 2005 04:26:30 AM |
|
|
Skeets wrote:
ID is not science - it is philosophy.
however, you should also be arguing against the over teaching of
macro-evolution.
iow, stop the pro macro-evolution spin campaign and teach a balanced
view of evolution - wriinkles and all.
for example, stop faking the diagrams and drawings shown in textbooks.
stop avoiding the serious issues that don't support the theory...
dont' make excuses for the lack of fossil evidence - just explain the
fact that the fossils don't currently support this theory beyond a
reasonable doubt.
How many times do you all have to be told? Science is not about
"beyond a reasonable doubt," it's about "preponderance of evidence."
For Pete's sake, get with the program. Sure, there are holes in the
evidence, but what evidence there is, points to evolution. People are
either uninformed or dishonest who think that what evidence there is
equally well points to any other theory or conjecture out there.
iow, let's have an unbiased version of macro-evolution taught.
Which means, don't try to fool people into thinking there is anything
particularly wrong with it by selecting it out for more "critical
thinking" than any other scientific theory. If it's deemed by
education professionals that it would be good for school children to be
exposed to "the warts and all" of a theory, either fund doing it for
every theory on the standardized tests, or select which piece of
science gets the treatment by some random method, maybe each school
year. This would mean that germ theory would be just as likely a
subject for "deconstruction" as evolution.
as such, you shouldn't even call it macro-evolution - that is the
answer. the unsupported answer is also philosphy.
Huh?
science should study the evidence.
science should teach the study of origins... and go over the evidence.
Sure.
the evidence that supports macro-evolution should be honestly taught,
as should the evidence that seems paradoxical to macro-evolution.
Sure, exactly as with any other science.
then again, i'm an realist in addition to an idealist - i know this
will never happen.
Sure. It would be expensive when so little time is allotted to
evolution to begin with.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
06 Nov 2005 08:02:13 PM |
|
|
Skeets wrote:
ID is not science - it is philosophy.
Bollocks.
It's creationism pretending to be science. This makes it poor religion
and non-existent science.
however, you should also be arguing against the over teaching of
macro-evolution.
Why? It isn't philosophy or religion, but science well-supported by
evidence.
iow, stop the pro macro-evolution spin campaign and teach a balanced
view of evolution - wriinkles and all.
Oh please! Let's teach the children quantum physics, superstring
theory, the various different theories of gravitation as well.
This is teaching children. Teach them what almost every biologist,
palaeontologist and geneticist thinks is the best explanation for the
diversity of living organisms.
for example, stop faking the diagrams and drawings shown in textbooks.
Such as?
stop avoiding the serious issues that don't support the theory...
dont' make excuses for the lack of fossil evidence - just explain the
fact that the fossils don't currently support this theory beyond a
reasonable doubt.
They do.
Get real.
iow, let's have an unbiased version of macro-evolution taught.
It happened.
That's the unbiased version, the one which science tells us it
supported by the evidence.
as such, you shouldn't even call it macro-evolution - that is the
answer. the unsupported answer is also philosphy.
Bollocks. Learn about it instead of spouting the lies of creationists,
science should study the evidence.
It does, and has done for centuries. It came up with answer the
evolution explains the diversity of life.
science should teach the study of origins... and go over the evidence.
Why? That's not the same are teaching about evolution. It call tell the
children that we don't know about how life originated, but that there
are several different hypotheses being researched now.
the evidence that supports macro-evolution should be honestly taught,
as should the evidence that seems paradoxical to macro-evolution.
Such as?
then again, i'm an realist in addition to an idealist - i know this
will never happen.
Bollocks.
You're a creationist posting under a pseudonym.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "APOCALYPSE" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
06 Nov 2005 08:25:01 PM |
|
|
So basically, your opinion is scientists have unjustified optimism in
supporting evolution...
iow, stop the pro macro-evolution spin campaign and teach a balanced
view of evolution - wriinkles and all.
for example, stop faking the diagrams and drawings shown in textbooks.
Then why teach the classification systems at all? Let's disavow any
classification except species. Apes and humans have 98% similar genes
but they are totally unrelated to us.
Snakes, lizards, turtles are no more related than to mammals, mice or
marsupials
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "APOCALYPSE" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't pass intelligent design off as science |
06 Nov 2005 08:20:15 PM |
|
|
Well-said
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
