News Courts rule Divine Creation is Science

[SOS2008]

Since this a "new and improved" thread addressing separation of church and state issues, here is an update on churches and tax exemption as non-profit organizations, once again from the AU site:

Section 26 U.S.C. 501 (c) (3) of the tax code states that houses of worship and other non-profits may "not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

SHOULD THE IRS INVESTIGATE THE NORTH CAROLINA CHURCH THAT EXPELLED DEMOCRATS?

Recent actions by Pastor Chan Chandler of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, N.C., are merely indicative of a larger pattern of partisan political activity at the church, Americans United asserts.

Several newspapers and television stations have reported that on Oct. 3, 2004, Chandler told his congregation, "If you vote for John Kerry, you need to repent or resign." Church members told the media that prior to the election, Chandler frequently endorsed President George W. Bush from the pulpit and attacked Kerry.

"Pastor Chandler seems to have confused his church with a Republican Party caucus meeting," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "It's time for the IRS to give him a swift reminder of the laws of the land."

I say absolutely.

 

[stoned]

could anyone from europe tell me what do they teach in european schools, do they also trying to brainwash young people on the same scale as here in America. do you guys have something similar to the Pledge of Allegiance ?

 

[Phobos]

Personally, I wouldn't mind having science class make references to current research of all types (string theory included).

Gets back to my point that ID doesn't do much, if any, research/experimentation. They mainly look for holes in mainstream theories and the primary audience for their beliefs is the public, not the scientific community.

Do I believe ID should be taught in public schools?

If it is presented as a proposed theory and its claims are allowed to be critically analyzed during the presentation of the material, SURE. If it were presented as fact that cannot be critically analyzed, NO.

Sure, that sounds fair enough (ID'ers strategy of "fairness" and "teaching the controversy" is working). It could even be a fun & constructive chance to to apply critical thinking to a particular debate. But consider the following:

(1) Why is the theory of evolution being singled out for such comparison to "proposed theories"? Why not the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of gravity, and the germ theory of disease, etc.? Answer: because there is a religious motivation behind ID. So, that becomes a question of teaching religion in public schools. And not just general religion, but a particular type of religion.
(2) If we open the door to ID, why stop there? Would we need to consider/teach every idea out there, no matter how non-scientific it is?

Some will say I'm deflecting the debate with these concerns (sidebar issues to the real issue of debating the scientific evidences) or engaging in a slippery slope argument. But until ID shows itself to be an actual science, it is the one deflecting the teaching of science. Presenting ID in science class would give it a level of merit that it has not yet earned (it has not passed scientific peer review).

 

[russ_watters]

Some will say I'm deflecting the debate with these concerns (sidebar issues to the real issue of debating the scientific evidences) or engaging in a slippery slope argument.

I wouldn't say so (yeah, I know - I already agree with you): school is already a tough issue without complicating it with such things. There are plenty of sound scientific theories to fill the time available that there is no need - much less requirement - that we cover the fringe for "fairness" or worry about any slope at all. I mean, if there isn't even enough room for all the good science, what is the point in debating the difference between marginal, bad, and non -science?

 

[Rev Prez]

I want to emphasize that science, and more importantly scientists, are not infallible. Science searches for better understanding of our universe. If creationism or intelligent design theory is presented as a scientific theory in our schools, it must be open to the same standards of proof and disproof, open to critical assessment, and subject to the same standards as all scientific theories. Otherwise, creationism and intelligent design should be presented as articles of faith and not a matter of science.

In short, ID should be taught through rote memorization of concepts. I think you should address issues in science education policy before demanding more of ID than you do of any other science subject taught in grade school.

Rev Prez

 

[Jason]

Phobos,

Plate tectonics and flat Earth would be Earth science, not life science or Biology.

Evolution is being singled out because there is a focused movement by a specific group to single it out. I see no problem whatsoever with teaching science the way it is now, with current alternative beliefs represented as side notes, either interspersed throughout the year or at the end of the year, if time permits.

 

[Kakarot]

here in florida we were never taught about the big bang or evolution throughout high school :(

then in my college astronomy class we skipped the big bang chapter :(

 

[Gokul43201]

<snip>Presenting ID in science class would give it a level of merit that it has not yet earned (it has not passed scientific peer review).<snop>

This is really all I wish to say about this.

 

[Jason]

Influencial philosophers of science

The two leading and most influential philosophers of science of the Twentieth Century are Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Popper has a very interesting article entitled "Conjectures and Refutations (1963)". He is best known for his argument that hypotheses are refutable and very difficult to prove. He also proposed that it is possible to conclude that some propositions are more reliable than others, based on their ability to explain things more comprehensively and have stood up better to disciplined attempts to refute them. According to Patty Duffy Hutcheon in http://www.humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Popper%20and%20Kuhn%20on%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Science.htm in the Brock Review (1995):

Popper's argument can be summed up as follows. A theory, to be scientific
rather than merely ideological, must clearly rule out specific possible occurrences, so that there will be no question as to whether or not it is indeed falsified if these events do, in fact, come to pass. The more a theory survives attempts to refute it, the more highly corroborated it becomes. It is thus increasingly reliable as a guide to predicting future events, and one can ever more confidently hope that, to some degree, it reflects the regularities actually out there. But there is no guarantee that it is a complete and true reflection.

Kuhn on the other hand pointed out the science is a series of revolutions, coining the term "paradigm shift" to refer to times when major scientific theories are overturned and expanded. He suggested that in between revolutions, when a particular theory has won out over all contenders to achieve "paradigm status" in a given area, the practitioners of a "mature science" behave as if the theory is reality and science is taught as a dogma.

A theory, once it has become accepted by a majority of scientists, becomes dogma. Kuhn concluded that this is "normal" science because this is the way science is practiced most of the time, except for periods of scientific revolution or paradigm shifts. Popper disagreed with this view, saying that the best scientists always knew that that their theories will not withstand the test of time. However, both philosophers agree that science is based on principles that change over time.

Religion differs from science in that religion is based on principles that are proposed to be everlasting and unchanging. Religion is essentially conservative while science is essentially revolutionary. Much religious study is focused on interpreting the principles of religion so that they apply to the changing world. There are of course many religions.

 

[Grogs]

In short, ID should be taught through rote memorization of concepts. I think you should address issues in science education policy before demanding more of ID than you do of any other science subject taught in grade school.

Rev Prez

I'm trying to understand your logic here. It seems to be: Since the school system is crappy, we might as well just teach whatever we want to? Space aliens killed Kennedy? Planet X is going to come and crash into the Earth? The radiation from cell phones is causing millions of cases of cancer every year?

If that's what you're saying, I couldn't disagree with you more. *IF* the students lack the reasoning skills to determine if a theory has merit, we owe it to them to check these things before we teach it in the classroom. This is what we have scientists for. If someone shows me a theory that there are 27 different flavors of quark, I have no way of verifing it. I might be able to read his paper and say 'OK, the math looks good,' but since I don't have a particle accelerator in my basement I can't check his hypothesis. I have to rely on the guys at Fermilab to determine if the theory has any merit.

 

[russ_watters]

here in florida we were never taught about the big bang or evolution throughout high school :(

then in my college astronomy class we skipped the big bang chapter :(

Yikes! Courses have different requirements though - did you take biology in high school? If you did and they didn't teach evolution...yikes!

I took astronomy in high school and it briefly went over the Big Bang, but except in an astronomy class it wouldn't be relevant.

 

[Kakarot]

yea i took biology Earth science, and physics in high school. we had an evolution chapter but we skipped it, we had chapters on big bang and then a bit on general relativity but we skipped those too :(. then in college i took astronomy and we skipped the big bang chapter once again lol (it was community college though lmao)

 

[motai]

Yikes! Courses have different requirements though - did you take biology in high school? If you did and they didn't teach evolution...yikes!

I took astronomy in high school and it briefly went over the Big Bang, but except in an astronomy class it wouldn't be relevant.

Yeah, Florida schools are too far south to even mention the "e" word. In my biology class we didn't even cover it. The closest thing that even resembled it was Mendel's genetics and heredity (which is really far off).

I am probably much better off retaking biology in a college environment, so that it isn't under the influence of the rabid (?) fundamentalists.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Yeah, Florida schools are too far south to even mention the "e" word. In my biology class we didn't even cover it.

My high school biology class certainly didn't. I was in the Bible belt (Alabama), of course.
Gee, motai, I thought things had gotten a lot more progressive in the 20 years or so since I was in a Southern U.S. high school. I guess not.

 

[Pengwuino]

The hearings, complete with opposing attorneys and a long list of witnesses

Witnesses? How can there be witnesses lol. "yes i was present when God created all mankind" or "yes i was witness to the evolution of humans from apes".

 

[faust9]

The hearings, complete with opposing attorneys and a long list of witnesses

Witnesses? How can there be witnesses lol. "yes i was present when God created all mankind" or "yes i was witness to the evolution of humans from apes".

Not God that would be creationism. This is ID so someone would have to have met the designer who is legally destinct from god.

 

[Phobos]

Witnesses? How can there be witnesses lol. "yes i was present when God created all mankind" or "yes i was witness to the evolution of humans from apes".

I assume they were using the term in the general sense to make their kangaroo court seem more real but (sorry to nitpick here!) note that in science you don't need to directly witness something first-hand to make a theory well-proven. Even if you did, it would only be anecdotal evidence and not worth much unless others could verify it. Although no one can witness so-called macroevolution, others can verify that aspect of evolution by examining the fossil record, conducting genetic tests, etc.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Can we start teaching history as woodwork now? Boy, are these kids going to be confused.

 

[Phobos]

oh boy...here we go...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html

The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution were not limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Their definition & motives aside, shouldn't this be proposed through the scientific community and not the school boards?

 

[russ_watters]

oh boy...here we go...

Their definition appears to be pretty good, but this is one of the rare cases that I buy into the "slippery slope" theory: don't even give these guys an inch. They are absolutely tenacious in looking for ways to diminish science.

 

[arildno]

The Kansas school board lacks the competence of "defining" what science is.

 

[Grogs]

Their definition appears to be pretty good, but this is one of the rare cases that I buy into the "slippery slope" theory: don't even give these guys an inch. They are absolutely tenacious in looking for ways to diminish science.

"a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena. [Emphasis is mine]

I think it's the 'logical thought' where they see ID fitting in. While I think logical thought is pretty important in science, it can't stand alone.

 

[Phobos]

Russ - I agree. Overall it reads ok, but it's the improper forum and there are other motives involved.

I think it's the 'logical thought' where they see ID fitting in. While I think logical thought is pretty important in science, it can't stand alone.

I'd also note the following set ups...

"using observation" (recall the frequent ID argument that you cannot witness, and therefore cannot prove, macroevolution)

"experiment, measurement" (frequent ID argument that you can't do evolution in the lab...at least macroevolution, that is)

"testing of ideas" (ID claiming to break up the status quo)

"logical argument" (the ID debate presented to the public is based on personal incredulity rather than examining the body of evidence)

"to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena" (a hint of things to come...replacement of mainstream theories with something that better suits philosophical beliefs)

 

[stoned]

Overall it is good for establishment to have masses ignorant and confused about science. american education is doing great job at stupyfying young people.

 

[honestrosewater]

"a systematic method of continuing investigation" - is that the whole definition? I realize "science" can be used very broadly, e.g. as opposed to art or religion, but isn't it here meant to refer to physical sciences? A definition of physical science that leaves out the physical part is unacceptable and applies equally well to math and philosophy.
Are they trying to remove the distinction between physical and nonphysical sciences?

 

[Phobos]

Science operates under methodological naturalism, which basically means when trying to understand something, you use natural processes to explain it and do not invoke miracles. Other than that, it's neutral towards religion (i.e., God might exist, but any miracle is outside the scope of science and saying 'God did it' does not provide any scientific insight).

But many creationists view evolution (and sometimes even science in general) as engaging in philosophical naturalism, which is essentially atheism. It is that they are fighting against. So, they are trying to remove the scientific bias of accepting only natural explanations.

 

[Phobos]

Overall it is good for establishment to have masses ignorant and confused about science.

I'd disagree there. Scientific/technical knowledge has a strong economic and military benefit (and therefore a strong political benefit when dealing with world affairs).

Unless you mean the religious establishment? But I wouldn't pin that on all religions, just the more extreme fundamentalist ones.

 

[Astronuc]

Judge bans teaching intelligent design

By Jon Hurdle (2005-12-20)

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday banned the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution by Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District, saying the practice violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Jones dealt a blow to U.S. Christian conservatives who have been pressing for the teaching of creationism in schools and who played a significant role in the re-election of President George W. Bush

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom," Jones wrote in a 139-page opinion.

The school district was sued by a group of 11 parents who claimed teaching intelligent design was unconstitutional and unscientific and had no place in high school biology classrooms.

The six-week Harrisburg trial, one of the highest-profile court cases on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial, was closely watched in at least 30 states where Christian conservatives are planning similar initiatives.

Intelligent design holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must have been the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 theory of evolution.

Opponents argue that it is a thinly disguised version of creationism - a belief that the world was created by God as described in the Book of Genesis - which the Supreme Court has ruled may not be taught in public schools.

In October 2004, Dover became the first school district in the United States to include intelligent design in its science curriculum.

Ninth-grade biology students were presented with a four-paragraph statement saying that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that there are "gaps" in the theory. The statement invited students to consider other explanations of the origins of life, including intelligent design.

In a fierce attack on the Dover board - all but one of whom have now been ousted by voters -- the judge condemned the "breathtaking inanity" of its policy."

Jones defended the students and teachers of Dover High School whom he said "deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Reuters - and http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051220/sc_nm/life_evolution_dc_1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_7;_ylt=AlkfjDqkVc3vLafsqtcCrsR7OyAi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl