| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2005 04:01:12 AM |
| Object: |
Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harris and seven other members of the 26-member committee instead
propose students be “more adequately informed” on evolution.
The eight submitted a proposal to the state Board of Education. One
recommendation was to change the definition of science. The current
definition, they say, limits inquiry because it allows only “natural”
explanations. They want it to be more objective and to allow students
“to follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
Evolution supporters said such a change would shake science at its
foundation.
“Intelligent design claims it's a mistake to limit science to
naturalistic explanations,” said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown
University who has written science textbooks used in Kansas and
elsewhere.
“But what other kinds of explanations are there? The straightforward
answer — which is very clear from their document but they never quite
frankly have the courage to use the word — is supernatural
explanations. … It means supernatural explanations in Kansas will now
be part of science.”
Intelligent-design proponents deny that. They say design can be
detected without introducing a designer.
If Kansas adopted the proposed changes from the group of eight, it
would go further than any state had gone in adopting a position
endorsed by supporters of intelligent design.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/10768962.htm?1c
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
31 Jan 2005 07:19:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:22:08 -0600, "Steven J."
<sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tdlrv01pbgdi44sm25r49ppici8t2mq6q1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:01:12 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> said in alt.atheism:
Intelligent-design proponents deny that. They say design can be
detected without introducing a designer.
If there's no designer how can there be design? Are they nuts?
More likely the article is ineptly written. The ID position is that design
can be detected, without recorse to any idea of who the designer is, what he
is capable of, or his motives or preferred methods. Furthermore, one can
detect design without being able to say anything at all about the designer
except that he exists.
The only way to 'detect' whether the universe is designed, without
first detecting the designer, is to compare it to a known designed
universe and a known undesigned universe. I'll wait until they find a
few to use as yardsticks.
This is usually explained as an end run around bans on explicit religious
indoctrination in public schools.
Claiming that there *is* a designer is religious. (Claiming that it's
the Christian designer is Christianity, but claiming *A* designer is
claiming *A* [although unspecified] religion.)
But I think it is also an attempt to
introduce theological propositions into science (or at least science
teaching), without exposing those propositions to scientific testing. If
detecting design tells us nothing about the Designer except that He exists,
then it gives us no grounds to reflect upon His competence, compassion, or
concern with humanity over, say, ladybird beetles.
We can't *scientifically* detect design, so design shouldn't be taught
in science class. We can scientifically detect a designer - but that
would be religion, so it, also, shouldn't be taught in science class.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
31 Jan 2005 02:53:04 PM |
|
|
Steven J. wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tdlrv01pbgdi44sm25r49ppici8t2mq6q1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:01:12 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> said in alt.atheism:
Intelligent-design proponents deny that. They say design can be
detected without introducing a designer.
If there's no designer how can there be design? Are they nuts?
More likely the article is ineptly written. The ID position is that design
can be detected, without recorse to any idea of who the designer is, what he
is capable of, or his motives or preferred methods. Furthermore, one can
detect design without being able to say anything at all about the designer
except that he exists.
I have yet to see a clear definition of design and a process to enable
detection of design in this context. Have you seen any? Design usually
is done with reference to a goal and the quality of the design is at
least partially evaluated with its ability to meet that goal.
This is usually explained as an end run around bans on explicit religious
indoctrination in public schools. But I think it is also an attempt to
introduce theological propositions into science (or at least science
teaching), without exposing those propositions to scientific testing. If
detecting design tells us nothing about the Designer except that He exists,
then it gives us no grounds to reflect upon His competence, compassion, or
concern with humanity over, say, ladybird beetles.
Moreover, it the detection of design is essentially on the same level as
"goddidit" then we are truly facing the same tasks in a rebuttal.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
31 Jan 2005 07:21:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:53:04 -0500, Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
I have yet to see a clear definition of design and a process to enable
detection of design in this context. Have you seen any? Design usually
is done with reference to a goal and the quality of the design is at
least partially evaluated with its ability to meet that goal.
The usual claims I've seen are proof by personal incredulity and proof
by bald assertion. "See the universe? It HAD TO BE designed. How
else would it be here?"
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
02 Feb 2005 02:30:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:21:09 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:53:04 -0500, Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
I have yet to see a clear definition of design and a process to enable
detection of design in this context. Have you seen any? Design usually
is done with reference to a goal and the quality of the design is at
least partially evaluated with its ability to meet that goal.
The usual claims I've seen are proof by personal incredulity and proof
by bald assertion. "See the universe? It HAD TO BE designed. How
else would it be here?"
Don't forget arguments from;
Ignorance and 'God of the gaps'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
05 Feb 2005 04:05:05 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:21:09 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:53:04 -0500, Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
I have yet to see a clear definition of design and a process to enable
detection of design in this context. Have you seen any? Design usually
is done with reference to a goal and the quality of the design is at
least partially evaluated with its ability to meet that goal.
The usual claims I've seen are proof by personal incredulity and proof
by bald assertion. "See the universe? It HAD TO BE designed. How
else would it be here?"
Don't forget arguments from;
Ignorance and 'God of the gaps'
I suspect that the arguments are made after worshipping the "God of the
Grapes."
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
06 Feb 2005 12:26:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:05:05 -0600, Pithecanthropus Erectus
<tuibguy1SPAMAJAM@comcast.net> wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:21:09 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:53:04 -0500, Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
I have yet to see a clear definition of design and a process to enable
detection of design in this context. Have you seen any? Design usually
is done with reference to a goal and the quality of the design is at
least partially evaluated with its ability to meet that goal.
The usual claims I've seen are proof by personal incredulity and proof
by bald assertion. "See the universe? It HAD TO BE designed. How
else would it be here?"
Don't forget arguments from;
Ignorance and 'God of the gaps'
I suspect that the arguments are made after worshipping the "God of the
Grapes."
S/he who does a fifth on the fourth rarely goes forth on the fifth....
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
02 Feb 2005 02:27:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:53:15 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:01:12 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> said in alt.atheism:
Intelligent-design proponents deny that. They say design can be
detected without introducing a designer.
If there's no designer how can there be design? Are they nuts?
Certifiably.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Kansas: Evolution debate enters round two' |
02 Feb 2005 02:26:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:01:12 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harris and seven other members of the 26-member committee instead
propose students be “more adequately informed” on evolution.
The eight submitted a proposal to the state Board of Education. One
recommendation was to change the definition of science. The current
definition, they say, limits inquiry because it allows only “natural”
explanations. They want it to be more objective and to allow students
“to follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
Evolution supporters said such a change would shake science at its
foundation.
“Intelligent design claims it's a mistake to limit science to
naturalistic explanations,” said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown
University who has written science textbooks used in Kansas and
elsewhere.
“But what other kinds of explanations are there? The straightforward
answer — which is very clear from their document but they never quite
frankly have the courage to use the word — is supernatural
explanations. … It means supernatural explanations in Kansas will now
be part of science.”
Intelligent-design proponents deny that. They say design can be
detected without introducing a designer.
If Kansas adopted the proposed changes from the group of eight, it
would go further than any state had gone in adopting a position
endorsed by supporters of intelligent design.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/10768962.htm?1c
There's few sign of intelligent life in Kansas.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
