Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in Florida

[vector3]

I would say you're working on a ban.


Red herring. We don't study the Greek gods or the teachings of Budha in science classes. The first is the domain of mythology, the second, philosophy and comparative religions. ID is not even close to science, and it should not be treated as such.

Conclusion implied by the data presented in the post and "missiles" shot from someone else's post. However, my humblest apologies to all, and more specifically, anyone for any misinterpretation of the intent of my post.

It it the purpose of study to gain knowledge. While science is nice, it is not the only form of knowledge. Science is only 1 subset of the domain of knowledge. Do any of the elements of the set of all integers belong in the set of all fractions? Of course not. However, we do study and use both sets extracting and applying what knowledge and understanding we can gain from either or both.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity,

Yep, and you could add he was highly critical of the established church. He also said

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.

(from the 1854 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Religious_views"...)

I further note at the URL you posted:

Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.

a view which I believe was also strongly held by Jefferson and other founders. My favorite modern statement of this view:

...And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God...

Kennedy's Inaugural, 2nd para.

 

[jostpuur]

Do any of the elements of the set of all integers belong in the set of all fractions? Of course not.

Did you just say $\mathbb{Z}\cap\mathbb{Q}=\emptyset$?

You probably meant $\mathbb{Z}\cap(\mathbb{Q}\backslash\mathbb{Z})=\emptyset$. Whatever...

 

[Pelt]

This is much the history my kids learned in school.

You should also note that all this predates the Glorious Revolution of 1688. A Dutch dynasty took the throne in England then stabbed its mother country in the back.

 

[D H]

It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here. Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

That would be mob rule. The United States of America is not have a democracy; it is a republic. To insert a bit of humor in this thread,

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables.

Evolution does not worry about every random event that may have influenced every living entity. TO do so would be ludicrous. Evolution is big-picture science, a bit like fluid mechanics. No fluid mechanicist attempts to model every single molecule out of the 10²⁶ or more that comprise a typical fluid sample. Nonetheless, fluid mechanics, like evolution, does an extremely good job of describing what happens in its domain.

At worst ID is just a simple story.

At worst ID is a theocracy not much different from what the Islamic extremists want to build (they just have a different name for their god). The worst of the cdesign propentists would tear down all of science. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. The creationist hit list includes not only biology but also astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, medicine, ... This is one reason why we at Physics Forums take the threat of creationism so seriously.

 

[vector3]

So you would be happy for IDC to be taught as non-science in a philosophy or religion class? I'm don't doubt the philosophers or theologians would have a problem with that, but I'd breathe a sigh of relief.

All knowledge is worthy of understanding and worth to be taught as long as the knowledge is good, right and true. For years and years science classes taught the Earth was flat because the visually obtained evidence indicated so, ultimately, as new information became available, science classes began to teach the Earth was round. I suppose it's reasonable for society should follow suite in this case as well. Teach what the evidence supports until new facts dictate a better understanding. Isn't that true for all knowledge?

Makes me wonder if the debate of whether the Earth was flat or round was this heated.

I agree, I'm sure the local priest, pastor or rabbi would have a problem with that

 

[D H]

All knowledge is worthy of understanding and worth to be taught as long as the knowledge is good, right and true.

Post-modernist claptrap. Moreover, ID is not good, right, or true.

For years and years science classes taught the Earth was flat because the visually obtained evidence indicated so, ultimately, as new information became available, science classes began to teach the Earth was round.

BS. Modern science (and science classes) came into being well after we knew the shape of the Earth. The ancient Greeks knew the shape of the Earth. The King and Queen of Spain and their advisors knew the shape of the Earth. Columbus' proposal to sail west to get to the East was ridiculed not because the rubes "knew" the Earth was flat but because they were educated and knew the Earth was much bigger than Columbus claimed.

I suppose it's reasonable for society should follow suite in this case as well. Teach what the evidence supports until new facts dictate a better understanding.

Then we are agreed. The evidence supports evolution, not ID.

 

[vector3]

This was in the Royal Society link in earlier post. So I suppose Creationism should be taught in science classes:

"Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith."

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298

 

[Pelt]

Oh, I disagree with the US Courts on several issues. But I wasn't aware the courts were sorting this out. Have there been any instances of a court ruling that ID should be taught in a science class? I know that courts have ruled that Creationism (Aguillard) and IDC (Kitzmiller) should not be taught as science.

Four decisions. Aguillard is a Supreme Court decision and binding in all jurisdictions. Freiler rose to the Fifth Circuit and is binding in that jurisdiction. Kitzmiller binds only in Middle Pennsylvania. Selman binds nowhere as it was remanded back to district court on appeal and settled without a second decision. Only Selman and Kitzmiller deal with Intelligent Design.

"Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith."

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298

I definitely don't mind using ID or creationism in discussions on the history and philosophy of science, a broad topic I feel could and should replace at least one of the three years of the Discovery Channel-like trivia that forms the basis of US middle school science education. On the other hand, presenting ID or creationism in a way that passes the Lemon test is equally critical. Seriously, you could have a 6th or 7th grade curriculum on how scientists went from geocentrism and absolute space and time, Diluvian geology and the assumption creation to heliocentrism, gradualism and Darwinism. And the beautiful thing is that the case law as is would force any such curriculum into a mold that would sap most of the energy behind the lawsuits. Call it the Mercier solution (after the Seventh Circuit case which found the fair market sale of a Ten Commandments Amendment sufficient remedy for a prior establishment clause violation). I call it a win for pluralism.

But at the end of the day, high school life and Earth science education needs to go with the best knowledge available to us.

 

[vector3]

Post-modernist claptrap. Moreover, ID is not good, right, or true.

BS. Modern science (and science classes) came into being well after we knew the shape of the Earth. The ancient Greeks knew the shape of the Earth. The King and Queen of Spain and their advisors knew the shape of the Earth. Columbus' proposal to sail west to get to the East was ridiculed not because the rubes "knew" the Earth was flat but because they were educated and knew the Earth was much bigger than Columbus claimed.

Are you trying to suggest that the Earth was flat was never taught ... come on...

 

[D H]

Are you trying to suggest that the Earth was flat was never taught ... come on...

Not in any science class.
From http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm"

All these results were known to the panel of experts which King Ferdinand appointed to examine the proposal made by Columbus. They turned Columbus down, because using the original value by Eratosthenes, they calculated how far India was to the west of Spain, and concluded that the distance was far too great.
Columbus had an estimate of his own. Some historians have proposed that he used an argument like Strabo's, but Dr. Fischer found his claim to be based on incorrect units of distance. Columbus used an erroneous estimate by Ptolemy (whom we meet again), who based it on a later definition of the stadium, and in estimating the size of the settled world he confused the Arab mile, used by El Ma'mun, with the Roman mile on which our own mile is based. All the same, his final estimate of the distance to India was close to Strabo's.
In the end Queen Isabella overruled the experts, and the rest is history. We may never know whether Columbus knowingly fudged his values to justify an expedition to explore the unknown, or actually believed India was not too far to the west of Spain. He certainly did call the inhabitants of the lands he discovered "Indians," a mislabeling which still persists.
But we do know that if the American continent had not existed, the experts would have been vindicated: Coumbus with his tiny ships could never have crossed an ocean as wide as the Atlantic and Pacific combined.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you trying to suggest that the Earth was flat was never taught ... come on...

Do you have any evidence to show that it was?

Pelt, thanks for the note on Freiler - I hadn't heard of that.

 

[vector3]

That's what I was taught in science class.

 

[D H]

You were taught an urban myth. That myth was originally created by Washinton Irving in his fictional novel, "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus". That the Earth was spherical was known to the ancients. While that knowledge may have been forgetten during the "Dark Ages", it certainly was well-known that the Earth was not flat well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

 

[Pelt]

That's what I was taught in science class.

Just out of curiosity, in what country and in what grade did you encounter this flat Earth idea?

 

[siddharth]

For years and years science classes taught the Earth was flat because the visually obtained evidence indicated so

That the Earth was spherical was known to the ancients.

And not only that, but the ancient greeks were also able to estimate the radius of the earth. All Eratosthenes needed was a stick.

 

[vector3]

="http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298"][/URL]
[quote]"Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference
between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs,
such as creationism, that are based on faith."[/quote]

Before moving onto the flat Earth discussion, the link above was submitted as evidence that ID should not be taught in science class. Clearly, the evidence shows that Creationism being taught in a science class is reasonable as an aid to increase scientific knowledge. Clearly, either the Royal Society is wrong or some of the previous posts are wrong. Which is it?

 

[siddharth]

="http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298"][/URL]Before moving onto the flat Earth discussion, the link above was submitted as evidence that ID should not be taught in science class. Clearly, the evidence shows that Creationism being taught in a science class is reasonable as an aid to increase scientific knowledge. Clearly, either the Royal Society is wrong or some of the previous posts are wrong. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

False dichotomy.

There's a big difference between teaching intelligent design as a [b]scientific alternative[/b] to evolution in science classes (with the assumption that evolution is "only a theory"), and explicitly mentioning it as an example of a faith based argument which is not science, and then going on to show how the scientific [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/5-pieces-of-evidence-for-evolution/']evidence for evolution[/URL] is overwhelming.

The Dover school board wanted the former, which as you can see is entirely different from what the Royal Society is suggesting.

 

[D H]

Nice how you cut out the very next paragraph:

However, some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence. For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.

The kind of teaching the Royal Society will allow is that creationism is a myth void of scientific value and contradicted by evidence. ID proponents do not want creationism taught this way.

 

[Evo]

="http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298"][/URL]


Before moving onto the flat Earth discussion, the link above was submitted as evidence that ID should not be taught in science class. Clearly, the evidence shows that Creationism being taught in a science class is reasonable as an aid to increase scientific knowledge. Clearly, either the Royal Society is wrong or some of the previous posts are wrong. Which is it?[/QUOTE]You have really taken that one sentence way out of the context of the entire statement. Did you read the entire statement?

[quote][B]A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published today[/B] (11 April 2006) by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science.

The statement points out that evolution is "recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world".

It concludes: "Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, [B]young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."[/B][/quote]
[quote][B]The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence.[/B] But there have been a number of media reports, particularly relating to an academy in north-east England, which have highlighted some confusion among young people, parents, teachers and scientists about how our education system allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. Our Government is pursuing a flexible education system, but [B]it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution[/B]."[/quote]
[quote]The Royal Society statement acknowledges that many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe and life on Earth developed. But it indicates that "some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence".[/quote][quote]The statement also criticises attempts to present intelligent design as being based on scientific evidence: "Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer'. In this respect, [b]intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.[/b]"[/quote]

 

[vector3]

There's a big difference between teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes, and explicitly mentioning it as an example of a faith based argument which is not science, and then going on to show how the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The Dover school board wanted the former, which as you can see is entirely different from what the Royal Society is suggesting.

This discussion has been whether or not ID should be taught in science class. Clearly, the Royal Society has said "yes it is reasonable" to teach ID in science classes. The question of whether or ID is science or not is a whole another issue. The Royal Society is suggesting that ID is a useful tool to increase scientific knowledge and "may be taught in some science classes". Not my words... Again, who is wrong?

 

[siddharth]

This discussion has been whether or not ID should be taught in science class. Clearly, the Royal Society has said "yes it is reasonable" to teach ID in science classes. The question of whether or ID is science or not is a whole another issue. The Royal Society is suggesting that ID is a useful tool to increase scientific knowledge and "may be taught in some science classes". Not my words... Again, who is wrong?

No.

This discussion is whether ID should be taught in science classrooms as a science and as an alternate theory to evolution, and the answer is clearly no. As others have previously pointed out in this thread, ID is not a science, and therefore shouldn't be taught as one in science classes. Simple.

Clearly, the Royal Society has said "yes it is reasonable" to teach ID in science classes.

This is not at all what the Royal Society has said. Did you read the previous posts?

 

[Moridin]

This discussion has been whether or not ID should be taught in science class. Clearly, the Royal Society has said "yes it is reasonable" to teach ID in science classes. The question of whether or ID is science or not is a whole another issue. The Royal Society is suggesting that ID is a useful tool to increase scientific knowledge and "may be taught in some science classes". Not my words... Again, who is wrong?

You are. You need to separate "promote as credible theory" with "show how its flawed and unscientific". RS concluded that it is not reasonable to teach ID as science in a science class. If it is not science, then why try to teach it as such?

 

[vector3]

You are. You need to separate "promote as credible theory" with "show how its flawed and unscientific". RS concluded that it is not reasonable to teach ID as science in a science class. If it is not science, then why try to teach it as such?

Not making the claim to teach ID as science. The Royal Society is claiming that it is useful in a science class setting to compare them. Not my words, I'm not the one that submitted the evidence. I'm not sure why that sparks such a great emotional response?

In science and math we use comparisons all the time. Comparison is a valid technique to teach and learn from. Given 2 sets A and B we compare them using A < B , A > B, A <> B We do this to increase knowledge and understanding of the relationship between the sets. Clearly a reasonable thing to do. If we don't understand the sets, if we do not understand what the elements are then how can a comparison be made.

Compare the sets and move on...

 

[vector3]

At worst ID is a theocracy not much different from what the Islamic extremists want to build (they just have a different name for their god). The worst of the cdesign propentists would tear down all of science. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. The creationist hit list includes not only biology but also astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, medicine, ... This is one reason why we at Physics Forums take the threat of creationism so seriously.

Thanks for this reply. I missed it earlier... I've been trying to understand the extreme emotional response from even the mention of ID or Creationism... It seems "I've been poking at the thorn in the Lions foot" so to say, which I reget. On the other hand, I've enjoyed the debate, (less, of course, what I perceive as personal attacks).

Do those at Physics Forums believe a myth can tear down the sciences? Shouldn't science stand strong regardless of any myth?

 

[Evo]

Thanks for this reply. I missed it earlier... I've been trying to understand the extreme emotional response from even the mention of ID or Creationism... It seems "I've been poking at the thorn in the Lions foot" so to say, which I reget. On the other hand, I've enjoyed the debate, (less, of course, what I perceive as personal attacks).

Do those at Physics Forums believe a myth can tear down the sciences? Shouldn't science stand strong regardless of any myth?

You don't teach myth as a science. You don't teach myths along with science. The only time mention of creationism would be allowed, according to the Royal Society is to show how it is not a scientific theory, an even that would not be taught as a mainstream course, if at all.

 

[D H]

Science will not stand if the proponents of the myth get their way. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. A literal interpretation of the bible conflicts with a lot more of science than just biology. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. The first step is to place creationism on an equal footing with evolution, then supplant evolution, and finally outlaw the teaching of evolution, along with the teaching of astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, you name it. The more vehement creationists deny much of science and they don't agree with the First Ammendment. Their goal is a theocratic state.

 

[Pelt]

Science will not stand if the proponents of the myth get their way. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. A literal interpretation of the bible conflicts with a lot more of science than just biology. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. The first step is to place creationism on an equal footing with evolution, then supplant evolution, and finally outlaw the teaching of evolution, along with the teaching of astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, you name it. The more vehement creationists deny much of science and they don't agree with the First Ammendment. Their goal is a theocratic state.

Don't you think you're overstating things by quite a bit? Since Aguillard the creationist movement has considerably narrowed its objections and attacks as its membership is increasingly open to old Earth creationism. When all is said and done, the real bogeyman to these people is common ancestry. On top of that, the Wedge Document hints at no plan to restrict the instruction of evolution in public schools. On the contrary, it's very optimistic about the prospects of some creation-like science emerging as a dominant perspective on its own merits.

On a purely policy note, my concern is that an American scientific community that doesn't at least give due deference to pluralism risks painting itself as merely another advocacy group in the eyes of the taxpaying public. Americans are divided half and half in whether or not they believe in common ancestry or creationism, but two thirds favor teaching both anyway. I've seen no evidence that discussing the controversy is anymore detrimental to the classroom experience than the random litany of trivia that makes up middle school science education. Still, presenting Biblical creation in context where it unequivocally viewed as the sole alternative to evolution serves no pluralistic or educational purpose beyond advocating for "an establishment of religion." Unfortunately, the same can be said of education that presents evolution and Earth science that unequivocally takes naturalism for granted. Neither approach is good for the relationship between the public and scientists.

 

[Moridin]

Not making the claim to teach ID as science. The Royal Society is claiming that it is useful in a science class setting to compare them. Not my words, I'm not the one that submitted the evidence. I'm not sure why that sparks such a great emotional response?

My reply is completely devoid of emotions. Yours, however, is not. You seem to be obsessed with an imaginary claim of "fairness", which is classical creationist tactics. RS did not say that you should compare them as valid ideas, which is the point - myth is taught in mythology, fact in science.

In science and math we use comparisons all the time. Comparison is a valid technique to teach and learn from. Given 2 sets A and B we compare them using A < B , A > B, A <> B We do this to increase knowledge and understanding of the relationship between the sets. Clearly a reasonable thing to do. If we don't understand the sets, if we do not understand what the elements are then how can a comparison be made.

I though I already told you that Intelligent Design creationism does not constitutes as scientific knowledge? There is no reason to teach falsehoods in science, just as we do not teach that the Earth is flat in astronomy.

On a purely policy note, my concern is that an American scientific community that doesn't at least give due deference to pluralism risks painting itself as merely another advocacy group in the eyes of the taxpaying public. Americans are divided half and half in whether or not they believe in common ancestry or creationism, but two thirds favor teaching both anyway.

Science is not a democracy.

I've seen no evidence that discussing the controversy is anymore detrimental to the classroom experience than the random litany of trivia that makes up middle school science education. Still, presenting Biblical creation in context where it unequivocally viewed as the sole alternative to evolution serves no pluralistic or educational purpose beyond advocating for "an establishment of religion." Unfortunately, the same can be said of education that presents evolution and Earth science that unequivocally takes naturalism for granted. Neither approach is good for the relationship between the public and scientists.

It is basic logic. You do not promote the teaching of factually false information in a science curriculum. Since intelligent design creationism is creationism and creationism is religion, then it violates the Establishment Clause.

Education does not take "naturalism" for granted. Science uses methodological naturalism, which means a restriction to the natural world, not the claim that the natural world is all there is. MN is standard science.

Don't you think you're overstating things by quite a bit? Since Aguillard the creationist movement has considerably narrowed its objections and attacks as its membership is increasingly open to old Earth creationism.

So? Creationism is creationism. Everything you find in IDC can be found in "Creation Science".

When all is said and done, the real bogeyman to these people is common ancestry. On top of that, the Wedge Document hints at no plan to restrict the instruction of evolution in public schools. On the contrary, it's very optimistic about the prospects of some creation-like science emerging as a dominant perspective on its own merits.

But why should falsehoods be taught as science? If you want equal time, then why not equal time for Nordic mythology?

Also note that the father of intelligent design creationism, Philip E. Johnsson (who wants to replace science with "theistic realism"), blames the teaching of evolution as the sole cause of abortion, homosexuality, divorce and genocide (Darwin on Trial), Richard Weikart, another member of the discovery institute, blames evolution and Darwin for the rise of Hitler (From Darwin to Hitler) and finally, another DI fellow blames evolution for Hitler, Stalin, the rehabilitation of criminals, sex education instead of abstinence, sterilization of poor people, selection of workers based on race and advertising (Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science).

So don't tell me that they want to continue teaching evolution. Cut the propaganda.

Thank you for your time, have a nice day,
Moridin

 

[Pelt]

Science is not a democracy.

No doubt, but that has nothing to do with anything I've just said.

It is basic logic. You do not promote the teaching of factually false information in a science curriculum. Since intelligent design creationism is creationism and creationism is religion, then it violates the Establishment Clause.

That's not logic. That's an assertion. A logical proposition would be "you do not promote the teaching of factually false information in a science curriculum because (insert agreed upon foundation here)." More importantly, it's a statement of principle regarding an issue that is decided in the public and legal spheres.

Education does not take "naturalism" for granted. Science uses methodological naturalism, which means a restriction to the natural world, not the claim that the natural world is all there is. MN is standard science.

This is akin to the argument that simply presenting ID in a science class is not an endorsement of religion. Simply replace ID with body of scientific knowledge and religion with naturalism.

So? Creationism is creationism. Everything you find in IDC can be found in "Creation Science".

Except old Earth creationists, irreducible complexity, fine-tuning, yada yada. ID proponents have come up with whole new apologetics to be slapped down.

But why should falsehoods be taught as science? If you want equal time, then why not equal time for Nordic mythology?

I haven't brought up teaching falsehoods as science, or proposed granting equal time to ID.

Also note that the father of intelligent design creationism, Philip E. Johnsson (who wants to replace science with "theistic realism"), blames the teaching of evolution as the sole cause of abortion, homosexuality, divorce and genocide (Darwin on Trial)...

Here's Johnsson in his own words. Care to show me where he says teaching evolution is the [ur=[PLAIN]http://www.apologetics.org/articles/nihilism.html]sole[/PLAIN] cause[/url] of any of those horrible things?

Richard Weikart, another member of the discovery institute, blames evolution and Darwin for the rise of Hitler (From Darwin to Hitler)

Weikart makes the case that Darwinism played a key role in pushing scientific racism and eugenics. Is there a particular part of his presentation you find unfactual?

...and finally, another DI fellow blames evolution for Hitler, Stalin, the rehabilitation of criminals, sex education instead of abstinence, sterilization of poor people, selection of workers based on race and advertising (Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science).

I haven't read this one. Does it make claims substantially dissimilar than those put forward by Weikart?

So don't tell me that they want to continue teaching evolution.

I didn't say Weikart or Johnson are happy about the fact evolution is taught widely in the US. However, their careers in creation science are post-Aguillard. These guys have come up on the legal outs with little or no hope of returning to a pre-McClean era. The Wedge Document reflects that fact.

Cut the propaganda.

Let's see, you're the one baselessly demonizing the other side and I'm guilty of propagandizing?

 

[vector3]

My reply is completely devoid of emotions. Yours, however, is not. You seem to be obsessed with an imaginary claim of "fairness", which is classical creationist tactics. RS did not say that you should compare them as valid ideas, which is the point - myth is taught in mythology, fact in science.

Never asked for fairness or implied it.

It is basic logic. You do not promote the teaching of factually false information in a science curriculum. Since intelligent design creationism is creationism and creationism is religion, then it violates the Establishment Clause.

Thank you for your time, have a nice day,
Moridin

In countless mathematical proofs we assume the truth of something false. We work through the proof and at the end demonstrate a conflict. I perceive no difference.

Thank you for your time as well...

 

[Pelt]

myth is taught in mythology, fact in science.

I hope that's not a hard a principle, seeing as mythology is of interdisciplinary importance in several science fields.

 

[Moridin]

No doubt, but that has nothing to do with anything I've just said.

You tried to play the fairness / majority card, which I refuted.

Except old Earth creationists, irreducible complexity, fine-tuning, yada yada. ID proponents have come up with whole new apologetics to be slapped down.

There where plenty of old Earth creationists advocating "Scientific Creationism". Irreducible complexity is just the same old, reworked argument from "nonfunctional intermediates" (such as "What good is half a wing or eye"). Now it is just "what good is a half bacterial flagellum?".

Creationists have been using various fine-tuning arguments since Leibniz (see Voltaire's Candide).

Even the concept and term "irreducible complexity" has its origins in the earlier "Scientific Creationism":

"To believe that the incredibly complex functions necessary in the bombardier beetle came about as a result of genetic accidents, is, at best, pure fabrication" (Gish, The Amazing Story of Creation From Science and the Bible, p. 101)

"The creationist maintains that the degree of complexity and order which science has discovered in the universe could never be generated by change or accident" (Morris, Scientific Creationism p. 59)

"serious problems” with the evolution model: high improbability of random formation of life; difficulty of evolving complex integrated structures since each part of the integrated structure alone would be useless to the organism in which it first appeared and therefore would be weeded out by natural selection; the near impossibility of the random formation of chromosomes, genes ordered to fit together both by internal components of genes and the ordering of the genes to fit each other." (Norman Geisler, quoting creationist Ariel Roth's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas 81)

Dembski's "Law of the Conservation of Information" is also taken from earlier creationism; an increase in "information" is an decrease in entropy and we have the same old claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is a classic creationist argument.

Here's Johnsson in his own words. Care to show me where he says teaching evolution is the http://www.apologetics.org/articles/nihilism.html of any of those horrible things?

My apologizes, it was the book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism". Homosexuality at page 2, divorce on page 41, genocide on 144. He technically refers to it as one of the major causes.

Weikart makes the case that Darwinism played a key role in pushing scientific racism and eugenics. Is there a particular part of his presentation you find unfactual?

Yes, his major thesis is factually incorrect ;)

On his website, Weikart presents evolution as "The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains."

Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory.

Let's see, you're the one baselessly demonizing the other side and I'm guilty of propagandizing?

Since I've clearly demonstrated that it is propaganda, how can it be a baseless demonisation?

In countless mathematical proofs we assume the truth of something false. We work through the proof and at the end demonstrate a conflict. I perceive no difference.

The standard way is to do original research, send in manuscripts for publication in major scientific journals, stage scientific debates and then get a consensus, write textbooks and then introduce it in class. ID creationists wants to skip from propaganda to class without doing any original research.

It is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is a scientific controversy in the shape of the earth.

I hope that's not a hard a principle, seeing as mythology is of interdisciplinary importance in several science fields.

No, mythology is itself not related to science in any way. The anthropological, cultural and historical study of mythology is.

 

[Pelt]

You tried to play the fairness / majority card, which I refuted.

Where? Be careful now. I like to think I'm bright enough to know what I've said and haven't said.

There where plenty of old Earth creationists advocating "Scientific Creationism". Irreducible complexity is just the same old, reworked argument from "nonfunctional intermediates" (such as "What good is half a wing or eye"). Now it is just "what good is a half bacterial flagellum?".

Nonfunctional intermediates and irreducible complexity or contemporaries of one another. Neither idea existed before Behe's argument.

Creationists have been using various fine-tuning arguments since Leibniz (see Voltaire's Candide).

Fine-tuning is not synonymous with the anthropic principle, and it's silly to credit creation science with such a thing.

Even the concept and term "irreducible complexity" has its origins in the earlier "Scientific Creationism"

"To believe that the incredibly complex functions necessary in the bombardier beetle came about as a result of genetic accidents, is, at best, pure fabrication" (Gish, The Amazing Story of Creation From Science and the Bible, p. 101)

"The creationist maintains that the degree of complexity and order which science has discovered in the universe could never be generated by change or accident" (Morris, Scientific Creationism p. 59)

By this reasoning, the concept and term "universal gravitation" finds it origins in the first Latin-speaking individual to note that what goes up inevitably comes down. And that's ignoring the fact that one of your examples is from a book published in 1996, three years after Behe introduced irreducible complexity in Pandas.

"serious problems” with the evolution model: high improbability of random formation of life; difficulty of evolving complex integrated structures since each part of the integrated structure alone would be useless to the organism in which it first appeared and therefore would be weeded out by natural selection; the near impossibility of the random formation of chromosomes, genes ordered to fit together both by internal components of genes and the ordering of the genes to fit each other." (Norman Geisler, quoting creationist Ariel Roth's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas 81)

Or before that: ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." (Darwin, Origins of Species)

If Darwin's challenge is unanswered by his mere issuing of it, how is reiterating its condition declaratively an answer? For right or wrong (and clearly, the record shows, for wrong), creationists don't even take on this challenge until 1992-3.

Dembski's "Law of the Conservation of Information" is also taken from earlier creationism; an increase in "information" is an decrease in entropy and we have the same old claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is a classic creationist argument.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is a creationist assertion. The argument is the particular strategy used by the creationist to "justify" the claim. Dembski's approach via information theory was as novel in creationist circles as it was wrong.

My apologizes, it was the book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism". Homosexuality at page 2, divorce on page 41, genocide on 144. He technically refers to it as one of the major causes.

In short, he technically said something entirely different than what you said he did.

Yes, his major thesis is factually incorrect ;)

On his website, Weikart presents evolution as "The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains."

Welcome to the advocacy side of the debate. Assuming the worst about your opponent is part and parcel of the game and neither side has clean hands. This was the key point I made when we started this tangent. McClean was a moral victory for a scientific community in a pluralistic society. Aguillard should've been as well, but unfortunately the academy has seen fit to make good on their victory and run the enemy to ground. In an age where Republican success in presidential elections accompanied an enlarged the influence of talk radio, an explosion in the number of conservative think tanks and law centers, and five terms of Republican majorities in Congress, did you expect creaetionists not to regroup?

Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory.

As I understand it, Weikart's book does not accuse Darwin personally of use or misuse of his conclusions by others. Likewise, while Hegel and Marx catch a lot of flak philosophically, it's rare you'll find an intellectual argument holding them personally responsible for Bolshevism.

Since I've clearly demonstrated that it is propaganda, how can it be a baseless demonisation?

You accused me of propagandizing. You're the one resorting to personal attacks and somehow lumping me in with the creationists.

The standard way is to do original research, send in manuscripts for publication in major scientific journals, stage scientific debates and then get a consensus, write textbooks and then introduce it in class. ID creationists wants to skip from propaganda to class without doing any original research.

You raise a fair point. Could Dawkins and Behe be doing something better with their time than publishing popular science/pseudoscience? Is there a better way to call for original research than having scientists like Pinker and Krauss write monographs disguised as popular media?

This is a day and age where many scientists who generate significantly more research publication than say ID proponents will still push out book-length lit reviews in popular media that also double as a presentation of one or more hypotheses on matters of public controversy. There's an argument that the standard way goes out the window when national politics steps through the door. Whether we're talking Behe after Black Box or Dawkins after the Selfish Gene, I'd argue it's generally an accepted trend. Still, Dawkins has a chair with a title fully justifying his drop in published research.

Either way, ID proponents and creationists aren't the only interested parties in the debate. There's plenty of refereed scholarship both critical and explanatory that's worth covering in a philosophy of science course that treats the subject in a deferential or at least constitutionally amenable manner. Even Barbara Forrest could past muster in such a class, provided her work wasn't presented as advocacy.

It is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is a scientific controversy in the shape of the earth.

Except there is no controversy over the shape of the Earth. There is one regarding origins, as it pits religion against scientific inferences drawn from observable processes to derive a theory of an inherently unobservable history.

No, mythology is itself not related to science in any way. The anthropological, cultural and historical study of mythology is.

That's like saying cells or stars aren't related to science in anyway. They are objects of study as well.

 

[D H]

It is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is a scientific controversy in the shape of the earth.

Except there is no controversy over the shape of the Earth. There is one regarding origins, as it pits religion against scientific inferences drawn from observable processes to derive a theory of an inherently unobservable history.

In the scientific community there is no more controversy regarding the validity of the key concepts of evolutionary theory than there is regarding the validity of the shape of the Earth. The "controversy" is a fabrication of the religious right.

No, mythology is itself not related to science in any way. The anthropological, cultural and historical study of mythology is.

That's like saying cells or stars aren't related to science in anyway. They are objects of study as well.

Red herring.

We do not study Aristotelian physics in physics classes other than in passing mention. The only reason to mention it is because some people do have an Aristotelian mindset; they need to be instructed that this mindset is invalid. Aristotelian physics on the other hand is a proper subject for a history of science class.

The key difference between Aristotelian physics and creationism is that most people do not have an emotional attachment to their wrong-headed Aristotelian beliefs. It is easy to teach them valid physics, ie., physics that does describe the way the world works. On the other hand, people do have very strong emotional attachments to their wrong-headed creationist beliefs.

While mythological creation stories are a valid subject for a sociology comparitive cultures class, the only reason to mention mythological creation stories in a biology or geology class would be to debunk them. Since doing so might well rub some people in the wrong direction, it is better to not address these myths in biology or geology classes at all. Just teach the facts and the theories, letting them speak for themselves.

You're somehow lumping me in with the creationists.

That because you're somehow coming across as one. We don't know you other than by what you post.