Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in Florida

[mheslep]

Any sources (primary) at all on these labels? Don't bother with agenda sites.

Lets' see..

Benjamin Franklin - deist / atheist
Tomas Jefferson - deist / atheist
Thomas Paine - deist / atheist

Does the slash here mean 'either-or' as in there not much difference? They're opposites. Jefferson and Franklin were deists. A hard case to prove atheism.

John Adams - deist / atheist

Adams was a Unitarian.

 

[vector3]

Okay.
Absolutely not okay as soon as you used the words "both theories". There are no two theories here. IDC is not a theory; it is not even science. Science belongs in science classes and non-science can look for a place in non-science classes. There's really nothing more to say about that.

It would seem, the United States government disagrees with you. It seems the courts are still sorting the issue out.

Personally, it's a joke to think it's the number of variables or the length of time involved that determines whether something is science.

That’s exactly what I posted?

You just don't recognize how much of an insult that is, do you? Besides, it's making absolutely no sense whatsoever. The statement of Darwinian natural selection is also extremely simple in form. So what?

It would never be my intent to insult anyone personally or professionally. If it makes no sense how does it become an insult anyway? I think you’re missing the point.

What does the mathematical capability of the average person have to do with the ability of professional scientists. In any case, the whole point of saying "there are so many variables" is completely moot, as far as science is concerned.

You’re missing the point. There are to many interrelated processes at work to reduce the question to a single definitive statement.

But there is no room for non-science in science.

Agreed. I would add, knowledge and understanding as it relates to the non-sciences is no less important than knowledge and understanding in the sciences.

 

[Astronuc]

Unitarian was a disparaging term back in 18th and 19th centuries, and to those of the larger denominations, Unitarians might as well be deists since they rejected the traditional trinitarian views.

 

[Moridin]

deist / atheist means that they openly affirmed the existence of a creator, not the creator mentioned in Christianity.

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/az.html (Benjamin Franklin)
http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherPages/enlightenment.php (Thomas Jefferson)
Thomas Paine? Age of Reason, enough said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/paine_04.shtml

Adams was a Unitarian.

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

He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity, thus making the claim that the US was a Christian nation quite weak. Unitarians are basically just one step removed from Deists.

A good book is https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805074422/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by Susan Jacoby.

 

[Astronuc]

The US was founded primarily as a commercial enterprise, with an emphasis on individual/personal liberty of which freedom of religion was one aspect. The colonies had been established under the auspices of the King of England, Parliament and various commercial companies.

 

[Pelt]

Unitarian was a disparaging term back in 18th and 19th centuries, and to those of the larger denominations, Unitarians might as well be deists since they rejected the traditional trinitarian views.

They still are treated disparagingly, although the orthodoxy is far more ecumenical in its dealings with them in the modern age. On a related note, the presence of a minority deists and Unitarians amongst the Founding Fathers does not nor should not lead us to conclude that the nation was founded on values of secular humanism or even humanism period. The vast majority of founders were Episcopalians and Calvinists who believed in the Trinity, the inherent fall of man, and all that good stuff. What does matter is that deist and Unitarian humanism--suspicious of both organized religion and secularism--found common ground with a Protestant religious orthodoxy to push forward two national ideals: "e pluribus unum" and "annuit cœptis."

The US was founded primarily as a commercial enterprise, with an emphasis on individual/personal liberty of which freedom of religion was one aspect. The colonies had been established under the auspices of the King of England, Parliament and various commercial companies.

Well, it was considerably more than that. If it were primarily a commercial enterprise it would've made sense to organize American politics along Dutch lines; 16th and 17th century Netherlands was the very model of economic success without the egalitarian sentiment and there were plenty of learned Dutch living in the thirteen colonies.

 

[Moridin]

The vast majority of founders were Episcopalians and Calvinists who believed in the Trinity, the inherent fall of man, and all that good stuff.

The point is that:

- Some of the biggest names where deists / atheists / critical of Christianity.
- There is no mention of god or Christianity in the constitution.

Thus, making the United States not founded on Christian principles. In fact, the Establishment Clause gives more support for this notion.

 

[Pelt]

He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity, thus making the claim that the US was a Christian nation quite weak. Unitarians are basically just one step removed from Deists.

Non-trinitarianism is as old as Christianity proper. It would be terribly inconvenient if we had to define Christianity in such a way that its founding isn't until the 4th century AD.

The point is that:

- Some of the biggest names where deists / atheists / critical of Christianity.
- There is no mention of god or Christianity in the constitution.

Thus, making the United States not founded on Christian principles. In fact, the Establishment Clause gives more support for this notion.

On the other hand, the large majority of the Founders were Christians who believed in a personal deity expressed in the Trinity, and the national motto is an applause of pluralism, so arguably the United States was founded on mostly Christian principles as understood by the collective wisdom of the Founders. One thing is clear, none of the framers were so egotistical to describe a Constitution that could be amended by future conventions to be a divinely inspired covenant. There's no need to rewrite history to acknowledge that fact.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, it was considerably more than that. If it were primarily a commercial enterprise it would've made sense to organize American politics along Dutch lines; 16th and 17th century Netherlands was the very model of economic success without the egalitarian sentiment and there were plenty of learned Dutch living in the thirteen colonies.

Except the British and Dutch had a falling out -

For more than three centuries England and Holland had been the closest of friends; but now, at the close of the long and bloody Thirty Years' War, which ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the power of Spain was crushed, and the Dutch, no longer having anything to fear from his Catholic Majesty, rose to dispute with the English the dominion of the seas. This brought about an unfriendly rivalry between the two nations, and the unfriendliness was increased by the fact that the Dutch of new Netherland traded freely with the English colonies. They carried great quantities of Virginia tobacco to Holland, and thus at least £10,000 a year was lost in customs duties to the British government.

The first Navigation Law, 1651, was aimed largely at the Dutch trader, but the wily Dutchman ignored the law and continued as before. This was one cause that determined the English on the conquest of New Amsterdam. Another, and probably the chief one, was that the Dutch colony on the Hudson separated New England from the other English colonies and threatened British dominion in North America.

The English claimed New Netherland on the ground of the Cabot discoveries; and Charles II now, 1664, coolly gave the entire country, from the Connecticut to the Delaware, to his brother James, Duke of York, ignoring the claims of the Dutch colony, and even disregarding his own charter of two years before the younger Winthrop. Richard Nicolls of the royal navy set out with a small fleet and about five hundred of the king's veterans. Reaching New England, he was joined by several hundred of the militia of Connecticut and Long Island, and he sailed for the mouth of the Hudson.

. . . .

http://www.usahistory.info/colonies/New-York.html

This is much the history my kids learned in school.

 

[Gokul43201]

It would seem, the United States government disagrees with you. It seems the courts are still sorting the issue out.

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.

And in addition, there's this:

All major science organizations has taken the position that intelligent design creationism is not science.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_statement_president_09182002_BA_georgia
APS
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
http://www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
http://www.aip.org/gov/gov/policy7.html

and the list goes on...

That’s exactly what I posted?

No, it's the exact opposite.

It would never be my intent to insult anyone personally or professionally.

I don't think you realize that your statement is an insult - reducing the sum of all the great contributions in physics to one equation derived from the Lorentz transforms.

If it makes no sense how does it become an insult anyway? I think you’re missing the point.

While it is insulting to the actual contributions of physicists it serves no purpose in the context of the present debate. Besides, we're not here to debate whether Darwinian Natural Selection is or isn't science (in fact, such an assertion would be in violation of the forum guidelines). Unless we are scientists in at least a related field, our personal opinions really carry no weight.

You’re missing the point. There are to many interrelated processes at work to reduce the question to a single definitive statement.

What question?

Just because there are a huge number of variables at work does not mean science can not extract truths out of a situation. There several other fields of science that have gazillions of factors involved in their mechanisms, but still make strongly verified predictions about truths within that system.

Agreed. I would add, knowledge and understanding as it relates to the non-sciences is no less important than knowledge and understanding in the sciences.

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.

 

[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]