Should We "Teach the Controversy"?

Religions > Atheism > Should We "Teach the Controversy"?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Max Masters!!!"
Date:	21 Oct 2005 11:56:51 PM
Object:	Should We "Teach the Controversy"?

George Diepenbrock is a writer for the Southwest Daily Times, a newspaper
published out of Liberal, Kansas (yes, that is really the name of the town).
In a recent article (available here), about the ongoing disputes about the
state science standards in Kansas, he wrote the following:
This scares opponents to death because they are more worried about Kansas
gaining criticism from national media as it did in 1999.
Instead opponents should come up with a good argument on why teaching only
the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission
statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make
reasoned decisions.
Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives
breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement.
In this essay I propose to answer Diepenbrock's challenge.
Doing so is not so easy, however, because Diepenbrock never gets around to
explaining what alternative theory he has in mind. The closest he comes is
this paragraph:
But after the August 2004 election, conservatives now have regained a 6-4
edge [on the School Board], and it appears they are pursuing avenues to
change state science standards again to teach other theories, mainly
intelligent design, in addition to evolution.
It would have been helpful if Diepenbrock had told us what, precisely,
teaching Intelligent Design entails.
Let us also consider the last of Diepenbrock's first three statements above.
How does presenting only one theory breed ignorance? If there is only one
theory that is supported by the available evidence, then surely it breeds
ignorance to present anything other than that theory. High school physics
classes generally only discuss the Copernican model of the Solar System. The
alternative, Ptolemaic model is accorded no respect. If it is mentioned at
all it is only for its historical significance. Does Diepenbrock believe
physics classes are breeding ignorance?
We might say that presenting only one theory would, indeed, breed ignorance
if there were other theories of equal merit that were not being presented. I
assume that Diepenbrock believes that to be the case. And since the only
rival theory Diepenbrock mentions is Intelligent Design, we will consider
the merits of presenting it in science classes.
What are the chief claims of Intelligent Design Theory? It cannot simply be
that there is some higher intelligence responsible for the presence and
structure of life on Earth, for that idea is entirely consistent with
evolution. If that is all Diepenbrock has in mind then he has not presented
an alternative to evolution.
Surely he has in mind the stronger claim that there are certain biological
structures that are so complex that it is simply impossible to attribute
them to non-intelligent causes. That being the case, there simply must be a
higher intelligence responsible for them. That claim has been defended by
people like Michael Behe and William Dembski. Is that the alternative to
evolution Diepenbrock wants presented?
If it is, then the reason for excluding it is very simple: the claim is
false. For example, Michael Behe claims that if a biomolecular system is
made of several well-matched, indispensable parts, then it is irreducibly
complex and therefore could not have evolved by gradual accretion.
Scientists have refuted this claim in three main ways: (1) By presenting
hypothetical scenarios, based on known genetic mechanisms, for how
irreducible complexity could evolve gradually. (2) By pointing to specific
complex biological systems and describing specific scenarios, based on
copious data, for how they evolved. And (3) By pointing to computer
simulations of evolution that show that irreducibly complex systems
routinely evolve gradually.
Since Behe is claiming that the complexity of biochemical systems is utterly
beyond the capabilities of natural causes, it is for him to explain why the
scenarios scientists have presented are implausible. So far he has had no
success in doing so.
Dembski, by contrast, claims to have developed an elaborate mathematical
framework for proving that a given biological structure is the product of
design. Alas, when it comes time for him to apply his framework to actual
biological systems he makes essential use of Behe's claims that irreducibly
complex systems cannot evolve gradually. Since that claim is false, so are
Dembski's arguments based on that claim.
I have no doubt that Diepenbrock does not want blatantly false information
to be presented to school kids, and that ought to be enough to justify
excluding ID from the curriculum. But perhaps he could offer the following
reply to my argument: Sure, he could say, I claim that Behe and Dembski are
wrong, but other people say they are right. Clearly there is a controversy
here, and students should be made aware of that fact.
But is there a controversy? Suppose I decide that I believe the Ptolemaic
system is more plausible than the Copernican system. Does that mean there is
now a controversy among scientists about the proper theory to teach in
physics classes? Suppose I get a handful of my PhD holding friends to go
along with me, particularly those who are not physicists and who therefore
do not need an accurate theory of planetary motion to carry out their
day-to-day work. Maybe we even write a book presenting our ideas. Is that
enough to have the Ptolemaic system taught with respect in science classes?
Surely not. Surely it counts for something that the enormous majority of
scientists are on one side of the issue, while it is only I and a handful of
friends who are on the other. Surely an idea has to gain some currency
within the scientific community before it is taught with respect in science
classes.
The fact is that every scientific theory presented as orthodoxy in science
classes began in exactly the place ID finds itself now: A heresy believed by
a handful of people dissatisfied with the orthodox view. In no case,
however, did the supporters of the heresy earn their place in the curriculum
by appealing directly to school boards and state legislatures. Rather, the
heresy won out only by producing evidence adequate to convince a large
majority of scientists.
And that is exactly what ID proponents refuse to do. The arguments they are
making now are identical to the ones they were making a decade ago. As a
scientific enterprise they have made no progress at all. At no point have
they shown how their theory accounts for the data of the fossil record, or
the findings of genetics, or the evidence from embryology, or the data from
any other branch of science. Evolution accounts for all that data. Nor have
they described, let alone carried out, any innovative research program based
on their ideas.
If we present ID respectfully in science classes we are saying that the mere
existence of a handful of dissenters from the orthodox view is enough to
have the dissent presented in science classes.
It is a standard that would be laughed at in any other context. There are
millions of Americans, some of them with PhD's, who believe in astrology. No
one seriously argues that is sufficient reason to present astrology
respectfully in science classes. Why not? Surely the reason is that very few
scientists believe astrology has merit, coupled with the inability of
astrologers to produce any useful insights based on their theories.
So that is why ID should not be taught: The overwhelming majority of the
scientific community believes its claims to be false, its defenders have not
shown that their theory can account for any of the data evolution accounts
for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory
even has the potential to produce anything useful to science. If Diepenbrock
believes I should be applying different standards in deciding what should
get taught in science classes, I invite him to tell me what those standards
are.
--
In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other
large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will
assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that
emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation.
This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal
response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and
effective recovery effort. The new Department will also
prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating
America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a
disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will
be given special attention at DHS.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 08:14:31 AM

"Max Masters!!!" <maxmasters@comcast.net> wrote in
news:TdudnS3Iq9seWMTeRVn-sA@comcast.com:

Should high school classes also teach the "alternative
theories" that Shakespeares plays were written by Queen
Elizabeth or Christian Science "healing" or the "faked"
moon landings or the "fact" of astrology?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 08:25:54 AM

Equal Time
(c)Roger Coppock, 1999
(All rights reserved.)
Ms. Jones hated this. It took her away from her Home Science classroom
at Anywhere Public Secondary School number 8. She certainly didn't
want to try to calm an irate parent and Principal Brown. These things
always start with something superficially silly, yet a couple of wacko
parents could end Ms. Jones' 28-year teaching career.
Gently, Ms. Jones opened the door and entered Principal Brown's office.
She fixed her eyes on her superior. He was sitting at his desk and
staring out his picture window. Ms. Jones had to get his attention.
"Principal Brown?" Ms. Jones softly inquired.
Her superior was too lost in thought to hear her.
Ms. Jones made her second try more forcefully, "Principal Brown?"
"Yes," the principal replied. "Ms. Jane Doe will be here soon. She
sounded pretty irate on the phone. Did you have to send her daughter
Janet home, Ms. Jones?"
"Yes, I most certainly did! My 9:00 baking class was baking cakes and
Janet defecated in front of the class and mixed her own dung into the
batter."
"You can wait in here for Ms. Doe, Ms. Jones."
Together they sat silently waiting for Ms. Jane Doe. Ms. Jones
mesmerized herself by looking out Principal Brown's picture window.
The leaves on the trees had changed from green to red and yellow, and
were beginning to change from red and yellow to brown.
Ms. Doe arrived and hastily dumped her jacket on Principal Brown's
bookcase. She had certainly left her house in haste: she was wearing
old clothes, no make-up, and had uncombed hair. She was angry too.
Her face was bright beet red.
"Why did you expel my daughter Janet, Ms. Jones?" Jane Doe exploded.
Ms. Jones answered the implied allegation, "In our cooking class this
morning, your daughter took off her clothes, defecated in a bowl and
mixed it with her cake batter."
"And so?" said Ms. Doe.
"The incident disturbed my entire class."
"Well if you can't control your class, Ms. Jones, why take it out on my
daughter?"
Trying to defuse the coming cat-fight, Principal Brown injected himself
into the middle of the conversation, "Can't you see that public
defecation is inappropriate for a high school, Ms. Doe?"
"Janet was also carrying a large mixing bowl full of cake batter with
her at the time, Ms. Doe."
"Yes, she would need that."
"Need that for what?" Principal Brown asked.
"To mix her dung with the batter, of course."
"Why would anyone want to do that?" Ms. Jones asked.
"It is our way. It has been our way for centuries. It says so in the
Bible; Ezekiel 4:12 says, "...thou shalt eat barley cakes, and thou
shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight,'" Ms.
Doe explained.
Ms. Jones froze her eyes on Ms. Doe. Principal Brown swallowed a lump
in his throat.
While her two listeners sat stunned, Ms. Doe continued, "The Bible also
says so twice more, once in Isaiah 36:12 and again in Second Kings
18:27. The Bible says, ' . . . that they may eat their own dung, and
drink their own ***** with you?'"
A silence blanketed the three. Ms. Doe realized that she had lost her
listeners.
It was left to Principal Brown to restart the dialog. In a low, slow,
apologetic voice he said, "But Ms. Doe, eating dung may be all right in
your home or at your church, but we simply can't do it here at Anywhere
Public Secondary School number 8."
Principal Brown's attempt at calm rationalization failed miserably.
Ms. Doe fired back a stinging reply, "AND WHY NOT?"
"Because it disrupts my baking class," Ms. Jones tried to explain, "The
other girls were so astonished today that they didn't complete their
projects."
"Well that is not my daughter's fault! Don't you teach your students
to respect other people's beliefs at this school? Why should my
daughter be expelled from school because her classmates are heathen
bigots?" Ms. Doe raged.
Principal Brown tried to calm Ms. Doe. "Of course we respect
everybody's views, Ms. Doe, but . . . " he said.
Ms. Doe would have none of it; her fire had been started. "All I want
is for the Anywhere Public School District to respect our people's
views, our religion; not some Un-American doctrine. Can't we go 50/50?
Wouldn't that be fair? Ms. Jones can teach her wild theories half the
time, and half the time she can teach the biblically correct
alternative, Dung Science. Her students will find that true science
not only confirms the Bible, it shows that dung eating is healthy," she
said.
The three sat in embarrassing silence again, and again Principal Brown
broke that silence. "Well, one can't argue with 50/50. Fair is fair
after all." Brown looked at Ms. Jones and continued, "Now that you've
explained everything, Ms. Doe, I don't see why your daughter Janet
can't return to school tomorrow, with Ms. Jones' apology."
Principal Brown continued staring at Ms. Jones. After a tense pause,
Ms. Jones followed his lead and said, "I had no idea that Janet's
behavior was religiously motivated, Ms. Doe. Please accept my apology
and tell Janet that she may return to school tomorrow. I will respect
her religious beliefs and give them equal time in my future classes."
With the situation defused, the tension melted away. Ms. Doe retrieved
her jacket and left Principal Brown's office.
"See, Ms. Jones all you need to is to give people a little respect,"
the Principal said.
Ms. Jones was not convinced. "What am I going to do for 'Dung Science'
textbooks, Principal Brown?" she asked.
"I am sure that Janet will provide some materials tomorrow. We can buy
some more with emergency funds if we need to, Ms. Jones," her principal
replied.
Glad to still have her job, Ms. Jones left the office. Principal Brown
continued looking out his picture window. He was glad that peace had
returned.
- - - - - - - - -
The peace lasted until the next semester.
Ms. Jones entered Principal Brown's office with a large frown on her
face.
Principal Brown looked away from his picture window. "What's the
matter, Ms. Jones?" Brown asked.
"I've got students biting each other in my afternoon cooking class.
Shall I send them home?"
Principal Jones answered a question with two more of his own. "Well,
what do they say for themselves? Have you called their parents?" he
said.
"It's the Smith twins. They aren't saying anything. I've called their
mother; she should be on her way now. We can talk to her when she gets
here."
"You can wait in here for Ms. Smith, Ms. Jones."
The two exchanged no more words. Only the whispered hum of the air
conditioner could be heard. The two educators were too busy looking
out the picture window to notice any sound. Winter had its icy grip on
the campus. The world of outside was white with gray trails left by
children commuting between their classrooms.
In a few minutes Ms. Smith arrived in an old knit exercise suit. The
blue polyester suit was tattered and sweat stained. Her hair was held
in a loose bundle by a matching blue ribbon, and one of her blue sports
shoes was untied.
As soon as Ms. Smith found a chair she started speaking. "So what have
my Ann and Betty done?" she asked.
"Ms. Smith, I am Ms. Jones, your daughters' Home Science teacher.
During our study of meat entr=E9es this afternoon your girls started
biting the other students and each other."
"And so?" said Ms. Smith.
"The incident disturbed my entire class."
"Well, if you can't control your class, Ms. Jones, why take it out on
my daughters?"
Trying to defuse the coming cat-fight, Principal Brown injected himself
into the middle of the conversation, "Can't you see that biting is
inappropriate behavior in a high school classroom, Ms. Smith?"
"If you were teaching meat entr=E9es, Ms. Jones, my daughters would need
to bite other people."
"Need to bite for what?" Principal Brown asked.
"To eat them of course."
"Why would anyone want to do that?" Ms. Jones asked.
"It is our way. It has been our way for centuries. It says so in the
Bible. The good book says in Leviticus 26:29, 'And ye shall eat the
flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat,'" Ms.
Smith explained.
Ms. Jones froze her eyes on Ms. Smith. Principal Brown swallowed a
lump in his throat. The two were simply shocked, even though the two
had traveled this path before.
While her two listeners sat in stunned d=E9j=E0 vu Ms. Smith continued,
"God's word also says, 'I will cause them to eat the flesh of their
sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the
flesh of his friend...' in Jeremiah 19:9. We Smiths are a God-fearing
family and always try to do what the almighty commands us to do. Your
school must give our offspring the knowledge to follow God's law as we
see fit, Principal Brown."
A silence blanketed the three. Ms. Smith realized that she had lost
her listeners.
It was again left to Principal Brown to restart the dialog. In a low,
slow, apologetic voice he said, "But Ms. Smith, eating people may be
all right in your home or at your church, but we simply can't do it
here at Anywhere Public Secondary School number 8."
Principal Brown's attempt at calm rationalization failed miserably.
Ms. Smith fired back a stinging reply, "AND WHY NOT? You let those
damn dung eaters promote their depraved dogmas."
"Because it disrupts my class. Several students had to see the school
nurse for their bite wounds, today."
"Well that is not my daughters' fault! If the other students knew
something of our Smith family beliefs, they would avoid getting bitten.
Don't you teach your students to respect other people's beliefs at
this school? Why should my daughters be expelled from school because
their classmates are uneducated bigots?" Ms. Smith raged.
Principal Brown tried to calm Ms. Smith. "Of course we try respect
everybody's views, Ms. Smith, but . . . cannibalism?" he said. "Whom
will our students eat?" he went on to ask.
"Why each other of course. They shall choose by 'casting lots in the
eyes of the Lord.'"
"But . . ." Ms. Jones tried to interrupt Ms. Smith's speech, but
failed.
Ms. Smith just had to deliver her tape recorded message, "All I want is
for the Anywhere Public School District to respect our people's views,
our religion; not some dung eating doctrine. Can't we go 50/50?
Wouldn't that be fair? Ms. Jones can teach dung eating half the time,
and half the time she can teach the biblically correct alternative,
Cannibal Science. Her students will find that true science not only
confirms the Bible, it shows that cannibalism is healthy. Then they
will make up their minds for themselves, and they will all choose
righteous cannibal lifestyles." she said.
Ms. Jones looked at Principal Brown. Principal Brown looked at Ms.
Jones.
Reading the handwriting on the wall, Ms. Jones spoke, "Now that you put
it that way, Ms. Smith, equal time, 50/50, is fair isn't it? If
Principal Brown agrees, I will lift the suspension on your twins Ann
and Betty."
"I'll agree to 50% if you will too, Ms. Smith," Principal Brown chimed
in.
Satisfied, Ms. Smith tied her shoe and left Brown's office.
Ms. Jones and Principal Brown looked out the office picture window and
watched Ms. Smith trudge through the snow.
Ms. Jones spoke first, "My students are already very confused with two
textbooks. The old ones AND the new Dung Science materials are too
much for them. How are we going to add a third textbook and eat half
of the students as well?"
Principal Brown only half-heard Ms. Jones; he had his own problem to
worry about. "How are we going to get the money for a third set of
textbooks? We spent all our extra money last semester on those
textbooks from the Dung Science Institute," he said.
Ms. Jones gazed through the picture window a minute. Then she silently
returned to her classroom. Principal Brown could not remove his gaze
from the window. Looking at the cold winter scene made him feel warm.
He was glad that peace had returned.
- - - - - -
The peace melted with the winter snow and hid during the spring and
summer. Then the chaos of a new school year found peace's hiding spot
and brutally killed it.
Principal Brown stared out the picture window, looking for signs of
fall in the landscape in front of him. There was a knock on his office
door. Wearing a big frown, Ms. Jones entered.
Principal Brown could guess why she was here. "Another unruly Home
Science student with a parent on the way, Ms. Jones?" he said.
"Yes, this time it's the Johnson girl. She brought a bottle of poison,
strychnine I think, to my junior cooking class. I stopped her just as
she was about to add it to our bread dough. I called Ms. Johnson and
she is on the way."
"You can wait in here for Ms. Johnson, Ms. Jones."
The picture window opened onto a world waiting to be transformed. Ms.
Summer was hanging on a little longer than usual this year. Mr. Fall
would soon chase her away, just as Old Man Winter would chase him away.
Ms. Johnson arrived and immediately sat down. Her face was bright beet
red. Before she had nested in the chair she nearly screamed, "Why did
you send my daughter Margaret home, Ms. Jones?"
"Because Margaret attempted to poison my entire junior cooking class.
She somehow got a bottle of poison through our school's security and
was trying to add it to our bread dough when I stopped her."
"And so?" said Ms. Johnson.
"She nearly killed my entire class, 28 students," Ms. Jones answered.
Principal Brown quickly added to Ms. Jones' remarks, "And besides,
poison isn't allowed on our campus. A student who brings it here is
committing a serious infraction of our rules."
"This is the third year I've taught your daughter Margaret, Ms.
Johnson. Until now we've been the best of friends. I can't imagine
what made your daughter attempt mass murder. Do you have any idea why
she attempted it?" Ms. Jones asked.
"We just converted, Ms. Jones. My new husband insisted that Margaret
and I convert to his religion before he would marry me."
"Your new religion tells you to make people drink poison?"
"Yes, my husband calls it a test of belief. His pastor likes to quote
the end of the book of Mark.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; . . . and if they drink
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;"
With a profound sense of d=E9j=E0 vu, Principal Brown tried to speed this
conversation to its conclusion. "Drinking poison may be all right in
your new husband's home Ms. Johnson, but your daughter tried to poison
her Anywhere PSS 8 classmates, and she has no valid reason for that."
"AND WHY NOT? Can't Margaret proselytize for her new religion? You
let those evil dung eaters and cannibals go around spreading their
dogma in your classrooms. You let them use your cafeteria's food like
a toilet. You even let them butcher other students and eat them. All
I want is for the Anywhere Public School District to respect my
daughter's choice of religion. Can't she get equal time? Wouldn't 50%
be fair?"
Ms. Jones and Principal Brown looked at each other, then looked out the
window, and finally returned their gaze to each other.
Principal Brown tied the ribbon on the now all too familiar package.
"Now that we understand your family's beliefs Ms. Johnson, I don't
think we will need to expel your daughter," he said, "Margaret can obey
the tenets of her new religion, providing that she informs Ms. Jones of
her actions first. You can be sure that she will be respected at
Anywhere Public Secondary School number 8," he apologized. "Now if you
go to my secretary, she will show how to remove this event from your
daughter's record," Principal Brown offered.
Ms. Johnson jumped out of the chair and quickly left the office.
After the door shut, Principal Brown said, "You are going to be cooking
with some interesting recipes now, Ms. Jones."
"If I don't infect, eat, or poison all my students first. And how am I
going to fit it all in? You've promised classic food preparation 50%,
50% for Dung Science, 50% for cannibalism, and 50% more for Margaret's
new poison faith. That's 200%!" Ms. Jones complained.
"That's OK! Our Algebra teacher, Mr. Davis, has had some of the same
problems with his students. You'd be amazed what original mathematical
insights his students' religious beliefs have found!"
Principal Brown couldn't believe he said that. It was like some hidden
puppeteer moved his lips. Ms. Jones understood that. She just turned
her eyes to the picture window. "It's going to be a long rough winter,
isn't it?" she asked.
Principal Brown looked out the window and saw not even a sign of fall,
let alone harbingers of winter. "Yes Ms. Jones, we are in for a very
long winter," he said.
THE END
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	24 Oct 2005 03:13:01 PM

"Max Masters!!!" <maxmasters@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TdudnS3Iq9seWMTeRVn-sA@comcast.com...

-snip-
Just as an answer to the question proposed in the header: "Should we "Teach
the Controversy""?-- I answer that, yes, we should.
Of course, there is no *scientific* controversy over the theory of
evolution. Of all major scientific theories, evolution is easily among the
least controversial and best supported, from a scientific standpoint.
Certainly better supported and less controversial than, say, the theory of
gravity which is commonly taught without particular outcry from the
anti-science, pro-ignorance crowd that currently clamors for creationism to
be taught in the schools.
But there *is* a controversy over evolution, and it provides a teaching
moment. In science class, it provides a perfect opportunity to discuss
science vs. pseudoscience (as in astronomy vs. astrology and evolution vs.
intelligent design creationism). Honing the ***** detector, as it were,
is an important skill for people to pick up if we don't want them taken in
by snake oil salesmen in the future. It lets you discuss, by contrast, what
makes a theory scientific as opposed to philosophical and what kinds of
inquiry the scientific method facilitates (and, also importantly, does not
address). Perhaps armed with this kind of knowledge futire generations will
not spend so much time having to read through so much easily-refuted
silliness on usenet, among other places.
The evolution "controversy" also provides a teachable moment about the
intersection of science and society/politics for history/current events
classes. It provides fodder for philosophy courses in terms of whether and
why people should derive their personal "purpose" from what they see in
nature. Advanced government classes (in the USA) can discuss the 1st
Amendment implications of dirty tricks like those advocated in the Discovery
Institute's Wedge document, and so on.
So, definitely "teach the controversy"... it's a ripe subject. Just make it
clear that it isn't a scientific controversy.
.

User: "B1ackwater"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 01:08:23 AM

"Max Masters!!!" <maxmasters@comcast.net> wrote:

Let's see now ... REASON informs us that 2+2=4, not 5. Likewise
reason informs us that EVOLUTION, not some stealth religious
idiocy, is responsible for life as we know it on this planet.
The evidence - VAST, multi-faceted evidence - leaves no doubts.
.

User: "Del"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	23 Oct 2005 05:10:13 AM

Max Masters!!! wrote:

First off, ID is not a theory, not in the scientific
sense. "Science is the systematic study of the natural
(observable) world. The Scientific Method involves
collection of data by observation and experiment,
and the formulation and testing of explanations
(hypotheses) against these same data. When a collection
of hypotheses is both explanatory and validated by
the available data, it is elevated to the status of 'theory.'
Theories are not held inviolable, but are modified,
and occasionally rejected altogether, as new observations
are made, or new experiments performed."
Also
"In order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss
questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be
clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the
simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a
set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that
we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other
reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it
satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class
of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few
arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the
results of future observations." --Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief
History of Time. Bantam Books 1988

Let us also consider the last of Diepenbrock's first three statements above.
How does presenting only one theory breed ignorance? If there is only one
theory that is supported by the available evidence, then surely it breeds
ignorance to present anything other than that theory. High school physics
classes generally only discuss the Copernican model of the Solar System. The
alternative, Ptolemaic model is accorded no respect. If it is mentioned at
all it is only for its historical significance. Does Diepenbrock believe
physics classes are breeding ignorance?

We might say that presenting only one theory would, indeed, breed ignorance
if there were other theories of equal merit that were not being presented. I
assume that Diepenbrock believes that to be the case. And since the only
rival theory Diepenbrock mentions is Intelligent Design, we will consider
the merits of presenting it in science classes.

What are the chief claims of Intelligent Design Theory? It cannot simply be
that there is some higher intelligence responsible for the presence and
structure of life on Earth, for that idea is entirely consistent with
evolution. If that is all Diepenbrock has in mind then he has not presented
an alternative to evolution.

Surely he has in mind the stronger claim that there are certain biological
structures that are so complex that it is simply impossible to attribute
them to non-intelligent causes. That being the case, there simply must be a
higher intelligence responsible for them. That claim has been defended by
people like Michael Behe and William Dembski. Is that the alternative to
evolution Diepenbrock wants presented?

If it is, then the reason for excluding it is very simple: the claim is
false. For example, Michael Behe claims that if a biomolecular system is
made of several well-matched, indispensable parts, then it is irreducibly
complex and therefore could not have evolved by gradual accretion.
Scientists have refuted this claim in three main ways: (1) By presenting
hypothetical scenarios, based on known genetic mechanisms, for how
irreducible complexity could evolve gradually. (2) By pointing to specific
complex biological systems and describing specific scenarios, based on
copious data, for how they evolved. And (3) By pointing to computer
simulations of evolution that show that irreducibly complex systems
routinely evolve gradually.

Since Behe is claiming that the complexity of biochemical systems is utterly
beyond t he capabilities of natural causes, it is for him to explain why the
scenarios scientists have presented are implausible. So far he has had no
success in doing so.

Dembski, by contrast, claims to have developed an elaborate mathematical
frame work for proving that a given biological structure is the product of
design. Alas, when it comes time for him to apply his framework to actual
biological systems he makes essential use of Behe's claims that irreducibly
complex systems cannot evol ve gradually. Since that claim is false, so are
Dembski's arguments based on that claim.

I have no doubt that Diepenbrock does not want blatantly false information
to be presented to school kids, and that ought to be enough to justify
excluding ID from the curriculum. But perhaps he could offer the following
reply to my argument: Sure, he could say, I claim that Behe and Dembski are
wrong, but other people say they are right. Clearly there is a controversy
here, and students should be made aware of that fact.

But is there a controversy? Suppose I decide that I believe the Ptolemaic
system is more plausible than the Copernican system. Does that mean there is
now a controversy among scientists about the proper theory to tea ch in
physics classes? Suppose I get a handful of my PhD holding friends to go
along with me, particularly those who are not physicists and who therefore
do not need an accurate theory of planetary motion to carry out their
day-to-day work. Maybe we even write a book presenting our ideas. Is that
enough to have the Ptolemaic system taught with respect in science classes?

Surely not. Surely it counts for something that the enormous majority of
scientists are on one side of the issue, while it is only I and a handful of
friends who are on the other.

What it counts for is in determining who has the burden of proof.
Surely an idea has to gain some currency

within the scientific community before it is taught with respect in science
classes.

That is a stronger point in my opinion.

The fact is that every scientific theory present ed as orthodoxy in science
classes began in exactly the place ID finds itself now: A heresy believed by
a handful of people dissatisfied with the orthodox view. In no case,
however, did the supporters of the heresy earn their place in the curriculum
by appealing directly to school boards and state legislatures. Rather, the
heresy won out only by producing evidence adequate to convince a large
majority of scientists.

And that is exactly what ID proponents refuse to do. The arguments they are
making now are identical to the ones they were making a decade ago. As a
scientific enterprise they have made no progress at all. At no point have
they shown how their theory accounts for the data of the fossil record, or
the findings of genetics, or the evidence from embryology, or the data from
any other branch of science.

Because it is not a theory.

Evolution accounts for all that data. Nor have
they described, let alone carried out, any innovative research program based
on their ideas.

If we present ID respectfully in science classes we are saying that the mere
existence of a handful of dissenters from the orthodox view is enough to
have the dissent presented in science classes.

A stronger argument, in my opinion, is that it simply isn't science.

It is a standard that would be laughed at in any other context. There are
millions of Americans, some of them with PhD's, who believe in astrology. No
one seriously argues that is sufficient reason to present astrology
respectfully in science classes. Why not? Surely the reason is that very few
scientists believe astrology has merit, coupled with the inability of
astrologers to produce any useful insights based on their theories.

More the latter than the former.

So that is why ID should not be taught: The overwhelming majority of the
scientific community believes its claims to be false, its defenders have not
shown that their theory can account for any of the data evolution accounts
for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory
even has the potential to produce anything useful to science. If Diepenbrock
believes I should be applying different standards in deciding what should
get taught in science classes, I invite him to tell me what those standards
are.

User: "Dennis Kemmerer"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	23 Oct 2005 01:42:47 PM

"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1130062213.188874.227910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

'intelligent design' is nothing more than repackaged creationism mythology,
and, like creationism, relies on acceptance of an unverified premise.
[snip]
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	23 Oct 2005 03:15:35 PM

On 23-Oct-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:

'intelligent design' is nothing more than repackaged creationism
mythology,
and, like creationism, relies on acceptance of an unverified premise.

[snip]

I am stuned and embarrassed to live in a country where our legislators
are afraid to mention this obvious truth, and where people are dumb,
arrogant & yes, bigoted, enough to want this taught in our PUBLIC schools.
Susan
.

User: "Dennis Kemmerer"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	23 Oct 2005 03:36:38 PM

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:HbS6f.9775$i31.7543@trnddc08...

On 23-Oct-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:

'intelligent design' is nothing more than repackaged creationism
mythology,
and, like creationism, relies on acceptance of an unverified premise.

[snip]

I'm not surprised. It's the same crowd who thinks they can push government
subsidized religion through by calling it 'faith-based initiatives.'
.

User: "Alan Wostenberg"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 10:59:13 AM

Max, you wondered " How does presenting only one theory breed
ignorance? If there is only one theory that is supported by the
available evidence, then surely it breeds ignorance to present anything
other than that theory.".
That's a big if.
According to Stephen Meyers{1} teaching the controversy consists mainly
of teaching the scientific arguments for *and against* evolution. Test
the kids on their knowledge of these arguments, and not assent to the
theory.
{1}
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 11:35:26 AM

"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:1129996752.996098.220960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

According to Stephen Meyers{1} teaching the controversy consists mainly
of teaching the scientific arguments for *and against* evolution. Test
the kids on their knowledge of these arguments, and not assent to the
theory.

There are no "scientific arguments" against evolution.
<snipping discovery.org *****>
--
"We should respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that
we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart." --- H.L. Mencken
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	24 Oct 2005 03:21:45 PM

"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:1129996752.996098.220960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max, you wondered " How does presenting only one theory breed
ignorance? If there is only one theory that is supported by the
available evidence, then surely it breeds ignorance to present anything
other than that theory.".

That's a big if.

According to Stephen Meyers{1} teaching the controversy consists mainly
of teaching the scientific arguments for *and against* evolution. Test
the kids on their knowledge of these arguments, and not assent to the
theory.

{1}
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134

The problem with Meyers' argument, of course, is that there is very little
scientific argument "against" evolution, and essentially nothing in the way
of criticism of it that would be appropriate below approximately an advanced
undergraduate or even grad school level. So where would that leave them?
Teaching evolution only. When pressed on what scientific arguments there are
*against* evolution, these Discovery types typically clam up entirely. It's
hard to imagine them having something they think would be appropriate for
12th graders.
People who complain that not "teaching the controversy" in his proposed way
is somehow stifling 'academic freedom' are obviously just playing games. We
teach Newtonian models of gravity in grade and high school, and probably
don't even mention that we *know* it's essentially wrong because relativity
and QD have supplanted that theory. Why does Meyers not advocate teaching
the scientific arguments for *and against* Newtonian mechanics and the
literally dozens of other scientific theories we teach about at the
pre-undergrad level? The reason is clear: he and his ilk are concerned only
with their social agenda and not about scientific rigor.
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 09:35:19 PM

Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Max, you wondered " How does presenting only one theory breed
ignorance? If there is only one theory that is supported by the
available evidence, then surely it breeds ignorance to present
anything other than that theory.".

That's a big if.

According to Stephen Meyers{1} teaching the controversy consists
mainly of teaching the scientific arguments for *and against*
evolution. Test the kids on their knowledge of these arguments, and
not assent to the theory.

{1}

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134

Since the controversy is ID is religion disguised as bad science, I
thing science should teach the controversy. ID is bad science.
It should state plainly why.
And it is designed to stuff religion into schools.
But religion is based on the idea god exist. But god does
not exist and that can be proven. Whe should teach that
controversy too.
If its fair for religious fanatics to teach bad science it
is fair for sciuence to debunk bad religion.
---------------------------------------------
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truely independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truely necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to cound
againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existance of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
neccesary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that relevation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

God is thus disporven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Del"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	24 Oct 2005 10:14:55 AM

Hey CC! For some reason you ran away too soon (or
maybe from your perspective you ran away right on time).
I posted Joe Geloso's debunking of this portion of your
argument. See below. Deal with it.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions. And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 1 3 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god
In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
Begin quote:
You appear to be confounding cause and effect, which,
understandably, can get confusing when we are talking
about transcendental reality.
[...]
Your choice (for example, of eggs for breakfast) is
the _cause_ of God's foreknowledge - from all eternity
- that on the particular morning in question you would
choose eggs. You could have chosen anything else, and
that choice of yours would then stand in that same
causal relationship to God's knowledge of the
situation. Even though God's foreknowledge preceded
your actual decision, that does not change the causal
relationship between those two events. Whatever you
decide, that is what God will have known from all
eternity. His knowledge is not the cause of your
choice. Just the opposite. Your choice is the cause of
his knowledge. So without your free will, there would
be nothing for God to know about your decisions - they
would not be decisions at all.
t
.

User: "Alan Wostenberg"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 10:45:32 PM

If you read Meyer{1}, you'll see he says he does not require teaching
ID. He suggests teachers teach the main scientific arguments for and
against evolution, and test the students on their knowledge of the
arguments... not assent to a particular theory of evolution. Seems
fair.
{1}
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 11:08:24 PM

"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:1130039132.216653.159080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

One more time: there are no "scientific arguments"
against evolution. Outside of kooks and cranks
like the ones at the "Discovery Institute," there
is no controversy about evolution.
<"Discovery Institute" ***** re-snipped>
--
"We should respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that
we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart." --- H.L. Mencken
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	22 Oct 2005 11:47:36 PM

In <1130039132.216653.159080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alan
Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote:

We already do that so, no problem!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://www.nola.com/
"FEMA email warned of disaster"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5332250C
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	23 Oct 2005 01:30:27 AM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

In <1130039132.216653.159080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alan
Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote:

We already do that so, no problem!

--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."

http://www.nola.com/

"FEMA email warned of disaster"

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5332250C

We will always have eccentrics, even among orthodox scientists. Linus
Pauling was a famous physical chemist or if you like chemical
physicist. He knew nothing about nutritional science.
Yet he preached a personal Gospel that massive doses of Vitamin C
prevented the common cold.
This is now known in nutritional science not only to be wrong but high
doses of any vitamin can be harmful.
Of course there are a few scientist whose beliefs are so powerful that
they must believe in ID, but this is a religion.
In science ID is a hypothesis. If experimental evidence is found for it
then it may be upgraded to a theory.
B C.
.

User: "Del"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	23 Oct 2005 06:02:58 AM

wbarwell wrote:

Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Max, you wondered " How does presenting only one theory breed
ignorance? If there is only one theory that is supported by the
available evidence, then surely it breeds ignorance to present
anyt hing other than that theory.".

That's a big if.

According to Stephen Meyers{1} teaching the controversy consists
mainly of teaching the scientific arguments for *and against*
evolution. Test the kids on their knowledge of these a rguments, and
not assent to the theory.

{1}

Why do you keep saying this? How come science doesn't
say this? How come you can "prove" "God" does not exist but science
can't?
Whe should teach that

controversy too.

If its fair for religious fanatics to teach bad science it
is fair for sciuence to debunk bad religion.

You don't speak for science C.C.

---------------------------------------------

IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.

A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.

The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:

A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

First off, this is not a definition. It is more like a job description.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.

Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence

How do you derive omnibenevolence from omnipotence? Why not
omnimalevolence? or omniduplicitous?
and so aren't not truely independent

attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.

You realize that assertions do not an argument make, right?

There are other attributes of god, that he is the
onl y such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truely necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

You are still only making assertions.

A CLASS OF GODS

It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.

Why?

Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god.

You changed your terms. What is this "omni-everything god"?
I have

coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.

THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGIC AL TRADITIONS

Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.

A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.

That should be your tip off that you may have it wrong. This is the
same thing that anti-evolutionists believe about evolution: that it is
obviously wrong and easily refuted.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.

Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.

There are any number of ad hoc claims that could nulify this.

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE

The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.

God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.

God has free will.

Adding attributes as you go?

God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.

That's not what the Bible says.

A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to cound
againts god's free will.

Huh?

B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.

But the premise is wrong.

C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.

How so?

D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.

As claimed by whom?

F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.

Because?

F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral,

Why not?

not omnibenevolent.

This is silly. You can look around you and see
that if there is a god he is not omnibenevolent.
Sheesh.

G. Evil exists because he allows it to.

So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existance of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.

So? How dies that disprove "God"?

OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD

God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.

Because "god" didn't kill him?

G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god

In fact all

moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.

Allowing and causing are two entirely different things

H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

Nonsense. Joe Geloso blew this argument away, thus:

You appear to be confounding cause and effect, which,

understandably,

can get confusing when we are talking ab out transcendental reality.

[...]
Your choice (for example, of

eggs for breakfast) is the _cause_ of God's foreknowledge - from all
eternity - that on the particular morning in question you would

choose

eggs. You could have chosen anything else, and that choice of yours
would then stand in that same causal relationship to God's knowledge

the situation. Even though God's foreknowledge preceded your actual
decision, that does not change the causal relationship between those
two events. Whatever you decide, that is what God will have known

from

all eternity. His knowledge is not the cause of your choice. Just

the

opposite. Your choice is the cause of his knowledge. So without your
free will, there would be nothing for God to know about your

decisions

- they would not be decisions at all.

[...]

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

A hasty conclusion.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.

1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.

You haven't defined "god" --said what he _is_, only what he does or can
do.

2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.

Sorry.

4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man.

Sorry.
[...]l
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?	23 Oct 2005 10:07:35 AM

Del wrote:

wbarwell wrote:

Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Max, you wondered " How does presenting only one theory breed
ignorance? If there is only one theory that is supported by the
available evidence, then surely it breeds ignorance to present
anyt hing other than that theory.".

That's a big if.

According to Stephen Meyers{1} teaching the controversy consists
mainly of teaching the scientific arguments for *and against*
evolution. Test the kids on their knowledge of these a rguments,
and not assent to the theory.

{1}

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134

Since the controversy is ID is religion disguised as bad science, I
thing science should teach t he controversy. ID is bad science.
It should state plainly why.

And it is designed to stuff religion into schools.
But religion is based on the idea god exist. But god does
not exist and that can be proven.

Why do you keep saying this? How come science doesn't
say this? How come you can "prove" "God" does not exist but science
can't?

Its pretty much proven by simple logic.
"Science", that is simple logic, does debunk god.
God thus cannot be repsonsible for anything, much
less the Universe.
Creationism is dead. ID is dead.

Whe should teach that

controversy too.

If its fair for religious fanatics to teach bad science it
is fair for sciuence to debunk bad religion.

You don't speak for science C.C.

You know, most Scientists are Atheists.
And the more imminent a scientist the more likely
that scientists is to be an atheist.
Only 7% of imminent scientists polled believe in
any sort of god.
So yes, I speak for science in that these atheist
scientists know as I do, that god does not exist.

First off, this is not a definition. It is more like a job
description.

This is a basic lowest common denominator
set of claims made about god by almost all
major religous tradictions.
I note you did not point out any attribute
above which Islam, Judaism, or Christianity do
not claim as a necessary attribute of god.

How do you derive omnibenevolence from omnipotence? Why not
omnimalevolence? or omniduplicitous?

Omnimalovence contradicts omnibenevolence.
Yo can claim it if you wish. But seriously (which obviously you
are not) everbody here knows that theology has long claimed
all good qualities for god, no bad qualities.

and so aren't not truely independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.

You realize that assertions do not an argument make, right?

No, You are the one with small ability to
think about these things.
If one gives up say, omniscience for god, one also gives up
omnipotence. If you cannot see why, you are far over your
head here in this debate.

There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truely necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

You are still only making assertions.

I am working with assertions 4 major theological
traditions work with.
I note you have no errors to point to. All you can
do is rant so far.

A CLASS OF GODS

It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.

Why?

Is it not obvious? If I show that this class of gods
does not exist, secondary assertions, that this god
is called Yahweh or Allah are no longer important. Get it?
Secondary claims such as god being trancedent or immannent
are then irrelevant.
Tertiary claism such as god having anything with Jesus or
Mohammed are then irrelevant. Get it?
Obviously not.

You changed your terms. What is this "omni-everything god"?

No. You hard a brain fart.

I have

coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.

THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS

Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.

A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.

That should be your tip off that you may have it wrong. This is the
same thing that anti-evolutionists believe about evolution: that it
is obviously wrong and easily refuted.

I am right, creationism is wrong.

There are any number of ad hoc claims that could nulify this.

You see, here is your problem. I am about to deal with them.
What you did not do was read this first and then comment.

Adding attributes as you go?

No. That is point B on my list of attributes.
You are not reading carefuilly.
Can you think of any religion that states god
does not have free will?
Aquinas makes it explcit in Summa Theologica.

God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.

That's not what the Bible says.

That is what the bible says in some places
and these are the proof texts theology has
been using for nearly 2 millenia.
Of course people like Augustine ignore
the fact god is depicted as pretty evil
in places in the bible.
But nobody ever accused theology of being honest.

A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.

Huh?

This became an issue about 1000 CE with Anslem and
other theologians. God is omnibenevlonet. God can do no evil.
If god can do no evil, is god still omnipoetnt?
God has free will, but god is omnibenevolent.
Can god still be said to have free will?
"Hunh?".
Basically despite such problems theology has gone
on to affirm officially and dogmatically god has free
will and omnnipotence despite the problems these
claims make. Anybody saying different had the inquisition
to deal with after the Albigensian crusades.
That man has free will and that god has free
will is a claim to be found in Aquinas's Summa
Theologica and is standard dogma in the RCC and
many Protestant denominations. Only Calvanism
accepts man has no free will, all is predestined
by god.

B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.

But the premise is wrong.

Yes. Argue that with Christianity of Islam.
They are wrong. But obdurant and not going
to get right with it despite every so many
people pointing it out. OK.
Let them have their rope.

C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.

How so?

He creates all, let him wave his magic paw.
Remeber, officially, god is omnipotent.

D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.

As claimed by whom?

Every orthodox theologian since Augustine?
Can you think of anybody who says god has no free will?
Or any ortheodoxy that says god is evil?
No.
But if god then is claimed to be omnibenevolent and god
is claimed to have free will, man likewise can also have
a god like free will and a god like good nature incapable
of doing moral evil.
If god is not allowed to be claimed as losing free will
by being omnibenevloent, man cannot likewise be claimed
to having lost free will by having a god like good nature.
Really, you are NOT going to really think carefully about
this, are you.
You are not going to play the "Logic Game".
You are not going to exter any real effort.
you are not going to really deal with this carefully.
Are you?

F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.

Because?

Because. The theists say god has free will and god
cannot do evil.
The theists say mnan has free wil land all evil comes from that, not
god.
But if god has a god nature and free will, which you
will find no theological traditions that claims otherwise,
then man mustm, being omnibenevolent and wishing no evil
to exist, to give man a god like free will and a god like
good nature.
REALLY! Do try THINKING!
In other words, they make an excuse, man has free will,
to get god off the hook for existance of evil.
Today, theologians like Alvin Platinga have strongly resurrected
these claims to fight problem of evil argumenst from
theologians like R.L. Mackie.
So these are not dead arguments.
Basically, from Augustine to Plantinga, they have been making bad,
false arguments based on ignoring gods alleged omnibenevolence
(which Plantinga explicitly accepts following Augustine) and
god's free will and not applying the fcat that the same applies to
man.
If god can have free will and never do evil, being omnibenevolnet,
why does god not give man a god liek free wil and god like free
nature?
If he is omnibenevlent he is duty bound to do so.
So moral evil should not exist.
Why does this seem hard for you?

F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral,

Why not?

You are on your own. Turn on brain.

not omnibenevolent.

This is silly. You can look around you and see
that if there is a god he is not omnibenevolent.
Sheesh.

So? How dies that disprove "God"?

Because "god" didn't kill him?

G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god

In fact all

moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.