Article

2005-12-20 Home Front: Culture Wars

'Intelligent design' teaching ban. ~~ID book torching to follow~~

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-12-20 14:58|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Let the teachers do the same fine job with ID that they do with English, Math, or Citizenship, and they needn't bother with banning it.

Posted by BH 2005-12-20 16:36|| 2005-12-20 16:36|| Front Page Top

#2 Come on, Besoeker. It's not science. It's religion. No scientific community would ever endorse it. (and don't go slamming them as being liberal/leftist/commie etc...they're just scientists, fer goodness sakes, not enemies of the state).

So it shouldn't be taught in science class. Let it be taught in comparative religion or philosophy class...but not science class.

Hey...I have no problem with anyone practicing their religion, or not, for that matter. That's what makes America great (well, one of the many things!) But I don't believe religion should be insidiously injected into impressionable kids' lives this way.

The judge ruled correctly.

Posted by PlanetDan 2005-12-20 16:57|| 2005-12-20 16:57|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm with PlanetDan on this. Religion should be kept out of science...I include Gaiaism as well.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-12-20 17:05|| 2005-12-20 17:05|| Front Page Top

#4 There is much in science that is not scientific these days. And there is always the Philosophy of Science.

When push comes to shove there are things that are unknowable. The secularists and religio-scientists (see also Gaians) just pretend that this doesn't mean anything.

Can someoone tell me exactly what proof or falsafiable test Darwinian evolution THEORY has undergone?

To me, as an agnostic, Atheists and the rabid secularists are just as faith based as any other religion. They just fill in the unknowable with their own prejudice.

Why can't people accept that there are know unknowns, as well as unknown unknowns without having to go all faithful?

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2005-12-20 17:35|| 2005-12-20 17:35|| Front Page Top

#5 AlanC: actually, the problem is a simple one. Science is a closed circuit. That is, an experiment is proposed and carried out by the rules. Its results are only valid if they follow the rules. Its conclusions are simply that if the rules are followed, then the experiment will produce those results.

An analogy is a game of chess. If you want to play chess, then you play by the rules, otherwise it isn't chess, even if it is played on a chess board with chess pieces.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-20 17:57|| 2005-12-20 17:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Can someoone tell me exactly what proof or falsafiable test Darwinian evolution THEORY has undergone?

Mmmm! Many thousands experiments are performed every year that were Darwin's theory of Natural Selection flawed, could and would throw up anomolous results that required questioning the theory. It is a fact they don't throw up anomolous results. I cannot recall a single experiment that threw any doubt the theory.

Nobody would design an explicit test of the theory of Natural Selection, because the result would be considered trivial. It would be like testing if the sun rises in the morning or water is wet, and of course wouldn't get published.

BTW, the theory is easily falsifiable. Its just it never has been.

IMVHO, if you want a role for God, then drop creationism and focus on the sheer elegance of the whole system and how all the processes fit together.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2005-12-20 18:40|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2005-12-20 18:40|| Front Page Top

#7 What's next: banning astrology from classrooms?

Posted by gromgoru 2005-12-20 19:07|| 2005-12-20 19:07|| Front Page Top

#8 So it shouldn't be taught in science class. Let it be taught in comparative religion or philosophy class...but not science class.

Absolutely, PlanetDan. If the universe could not exist without the intervention of an "intelligent designer", then it is similarly necessary to have an intelligent designer to design the aforementioned intelligent designer. Much like the Modified Hindu Creationist Theory, it rapidly becomes turtles (or intelligent designers) all the way down.

Something that Creationists, with their belief in a single-shot origin of this universe, overlook is how it is more than possible that this universe has gone through several, if not several bazillion, iterations of itself via big bang and big crunch cycles.

The admittedly profound elegance of our current universe may not be the byproduct of some overarching faculty of design. Instead, it may be the enduring result of countless other failed universes that preceded it.

A common argument of ID proponents is that shifting any of the fundamental constantants (i.e., the speed of light and other critical values) by even one millionth of their current value would cause our universe to wink out of existence.

In light of this astonishing fact, it therefore becomes quite possible that our iteration of this universe was preceded by innumerable other universes that collapsed almost instantaneously due to their not having the precise balance of physical constants required to form a stable "reality."

It could be extremely likely that our particular universe just happens to be an iteration that has all of the constants at the exact right values for once. Modern scientists refer to systems that require such precise parametric configuration in order to exist, "Goldilocks Systems". Things cannot be too hot or cold, soft or hard ... etc., but must instead be, "just right."

None of this in any way lessens the stupendous nature of what was required for this universe we all know and love to come into being. It just doesn't happen to require any divine intervention in order to rationally explain it using scientific terms.

Because science does not exhibit any profound shortcomings in the service of this explanatory function, there is absolutely no valid reason to inject the (however costumed) palliative conjectures of one religious group into this superb framework. Claiming such inductive logic to be even a remote form of real science is pure hooey.

I have actually had a person at one dinner party attempt to assert that science is actually a religion in and of itself. The host and I immediately rejoined that, unlike religion, if any scientific principal or concept, no matter how dear or enshrined, can be shown as demonstrably false it is immediately discarded. Few, if any, religions especially the fundamentalist ones pass this sort of test. Their blind adherence to doctrine often represents the exact polar opposite of the scientific principal.

To me, as an agnostic, Atheists and the rabid secularists are just as faith based as any other religion.

Erm ... atheism does not require any faith in order to be upheld. Using the scientific principal, the observable universe can largely be explained without the induction of any supernatural or omniscient being. There is no need for any "faith in the non-existence of God", there is simply no requirement that a supreme being be postulated to explain much of what goes on around us in daily life.

What's next: banning astrology from classrooms?

One can only ~~pray~~ hope.

Posted by Zenster 2005-12-20 21:15|| 2005-12-20 21:15|| Front Page Top

#9 Phil, sorry to disagree but Darwin's theory cannot be tested. The time scales and randomizing factors are incalculable. There are all sorts of problems with a theory that posits differentiation of species through natural selection when the characteristics selected have zero benefit in the real world until you have an entire system built up.

Darwin's Finch developed a larger bill. Fine natural selection can obviously favor a bird with a characteristic that improves its personal survivability. To pretend that a minor characteristic mutation with no particular significance just happens to stick around in a population for thousands of generations waiting for the next minor mutation, etc. etc. until enough mutations have taken place that hey presto a new species is born is as much faith based reasoning as any evangelical.

Zenster, you're right but don't seem to get it. It IS turtles all the way down no matter what religion you believe in Islam, Christianity, Science, Enviromentalism......they are all just filling in the unknowable with their own pet imaginings.

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2005-12-20 21:28|| 2005-12-20 21:28|| Front Page Top

#10 There is no need for any "faith in the non-existence of God", there is simply no requirement that a supreme being be postulated to explain much of what goes on around us in daily life.

If there is truely "no need" why has every civiliazation since recorded time attempted to find as Joseph Campbell wrote, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces?" I suspect there is something within each of us vectoring us there.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-12-20 21:44|| 2005-12-20 21:44|| Front Page Top

#11 Zenster, you're right but don't seem to get it. It IS turtles all the way down no matter what religion you believe in Islam, Christianity, Science, Enviromentalism......they are all just filling in the unknowable with their own pet imaginings.

AlanC, please avoid conflating the unknown with the "unknowable". There are very, very few things in this world which are truly unknowable. Yes, many things are still unknown, but this in no way precludes human ability to eventually know and identify them.

As for what I elect to use in assessing the surrounding universe, I opt for a system that is reproduceable, systematic and one based upon testable conditions in order to make valid observations. However comforting inductive logic can be at times, it typically loses a lot of luster in the face of reason.

If there is truely "no need" why has every civiliazation since recorded time attempted to find as Joseph Campbell wrote, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces?" I suspect there is something within each of us vectoring us there.

Again, I feel you are conflating the heroic with the theistic. I feel very strongly that each of us must be our own hero. I try to limit my hero worship and find the adulation shown for so many of this world's celebrities unmerited and, frequently, unearned.

If you've read the magnificent tome, "Guns, Germs and Steel", Jared Diamond's reference to the "rare genius" whose emergence is supported by large scale societal structures is where I start casting about for heroes. Firestarting, irrigation, hybridization, astronomic observation and the like are the basis for what I call heroic endeavor.

Joe Campbell's blather gets to me when he assumes that humans have always been conscious. I firmly believe that proto-conscious humans are the ones who etched deistic worship and religious infrastructure into much of modern life. However, I'll reserve such discussion for another time.

Intelligent Design belongs in a comparative religion or philosophy class. It has no pertinence to science and there is no reason to comingle them save to harm the latter in pursuit of lending undue credibility to the former.

Posted by Zenster 2005-12-20 22:08|| 2005-12-20 22:08|| Front Page Top

12:52 Huputing Hupeating4484
20:59 Anginens Thrinesh2555
21:35 Chimble Chans3999
23:59 Old Marine
23:57 Seafarious
23:52 DMFD
23:46 ed
23:38 DMFD
23:38 Jan
23:26 3dc
23:17 Rafael
23:16 Jan
23:13 Rafael
23:12 Oldspook
23:09 Oldspook
23:07 mjslack
23:06 Bomb-a-rama
23:05 3dc
22:58 3dc
22:55 Rafael
22:54 Rafael
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 Rafael
22:41 Bobby