Topic awaiting preservation: Same Old Shit, Different Court Room... (Page 1 of 2)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/23/life.evolution.reut/index.html

Let's all hope this goes well, eh?

quote:

---

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.

"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."

---

The important distinction to be made here, is that nobody is trying to limit what scientific inquiries are made.
What is being done is stopping such inquiries that have no actual science behind them from being taught as science in our public schools.

Hopefully that distinction, among others, is noted during this episode.

quote:

---

At least 31 states are taking steps to teach alternatives to evolution.

---

I had no idea it was that wide-spread. Very troublesome.

It amazes one that this sort of ignorance can be so prevalent in a supposedly "modern" country.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

While I understand the principle that this is non-science and thus has no place in a science class, am I missing another element that makes this so troubling?

I mean, so you teach kids about intelligent design. What are the negative side-effects in the long term of doing so that makes this so important to you guys? Is it simply the fact that it doesn't belong or acknowledgment of a God or something else?

Trying to understand.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

^ You're joking, right?

No, not at all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that it is a problem, government controlled schools mandating and teaching religion and all that, but I just don't see this as quite the same level of problem as you do. Compared to some of the other unjust and troubling things in the world it just does not seem that important.

Avian flu mutating into a person to person disease, the corporatocracy that is taking hold at a global level, Bush picking two SCOTUS judges, Wolfowitz -- one of the founders of PNAC -- heading the world bank, Hurricanes destroying American cities, a projected $10 trillion in national debt by the time Bush leaves office, the privatization of our military to a point where transparency and public inquiry is dissappearing, a situation that is only getting worse in the ME, the fact that we will all have National ID cards in a matter of years, the surveillance states being built around us, etc, ect.

Just wondering if I was missing another element in this issue to make it so important.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

The indocrination of future generations into the religous flock, so that most of what you have listed as concerns (and they are, of course) will not be questioned.

How's that?

The thing is,the Religious Right in America has been trying to get its foot in the door of public schooling since time immorial (ok, well, probably not that long, but you get the picture ). We all know that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You sure you want to give them that inch?

My biggest concern, is the "downgrading" of Science to one that is just a process based on Faith, and nothing more.

Ramasax: I realize the U.S. are completely different from France and Europe but I don't see the problem with having a National ID card. It's just a mean to prove your identity. Not everybody has a driving licence or a passport. In France the National ID card is free. For a passport the administrative fees are 60? though IIRC it has a duration of 10years, not to talk about passing the driving licence ( which if you live in a big city is rather useless btw ). Of course my view of the National ID card is also based on the fact that it's all you need to travel and work in any country of the Shengen area.

As for the problem of 'teaching' ID in public school, WebShaman summed up the long term impact.

quote:

---

It's just a mean to prove your identity

---

Where do you draw the line? And barring exceptional circumstances....why should you have to 'prove' who you are?

NoJive: In many circumstances, i.e. : in the public transports to prove that you are the person nominated on your monthly subscription, in an airport for the check-in ( for countries and people of the Shengen area, but also for interior flights ), to prove you are old enough to buy some cigarettes or watch a XYZ-rated movie alone in a cinema, to see if you already have a judiciary case during a control of police ( for suspected drug detention/abuse, disturbing the public order, roding late, ... ).

Ok I must admit I'm almost never asked my ID card, but I'm good chap. The only time some police officers asked my ID was ~8 year ago, it was late, some friends and I were going back home. The policemen wondered what we were doing in the streets at night and made sure were not known from their services.

Ramasax: there are two main parts of the problem -

1) It's NOT scientifically sound. Period. Therefore, it has no business whatsoever being in a science class.

2) This is a very blatant attempt to push a biblical-creationist agenda into our public schools. Yes, this is a *very* big problem.

If we take this step, it opens something that can't be contained, and before we know it, we have a theocracy.

Teaching blatantly religious, unscientific "theories" in our science class, soley because so many religious people don't want to accept the scientific truth, or feel that evolution somehow undermines their beliefs, is a horrible horrible thing.
The fact that such a large number of Americans are too ignorant to differentiate between evolution and ID, find it so hard to reconcile their faith with reality, is truly frightening.

The other isues you mention are obviously big ones, ram. But don't let the significance of this one get lost on you...

Because the religious tend to walk and think in lock-step, I believe this movement is closely related to some of the issues Ram raises.

When you have a pliable populace like that and the titular and elected head of the country claims to have a direct line to some diety, it is a whole lot easier to get such things past the real thinkers and to shout them down.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.

---

Truely disturbing!

Another article -

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/26/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

quote:

---

Intelligent design supporters "seem to have shifted virtually entirely to political and rhetorical efforts to sway the general public," Scott said. "The bitter truth is that there is no argument going on in the scientific community about whether evolution took place."

---

Let's just reiterate, while we're at it, that ID is NOT an alternative to evolution.

And, as said in the quote, there is no argument in the scientific community regarding this issue.

Why is there any kind of debate about this at all? ID is a religious matter - it has no place in the science classroom. It just has no scientific basis whatsoever.

quote:

---

WS: The indocrination of future generations into the religous flock, so that most of what you have listed as concerns (and they are, of course) will not be questioned.

How's that?

---

I guess that works.

To my knowledge though, ID does not specify any one religion, just that there was a greater force behind everything. I really can't see this as an indoctrination to any specific belief. Also, just because one has beliefs in a higher power does not necessarily mean that they will not question, although I must concede this is usually not the norm unfortunately.

Other than that I can see where you are coming from and how it ties in with some of the concerns I mentioned.

As an aside, I'd like to think that with modern marvels of the information age such as the Internet, the effects of anything like this will be greatly diluted. I hate to say it, but we are sure to find out considering the support it has garnered.

quote:

---

WS: The thing is,the Religious Right in America has been trying to get its foot in the door of public schooling since time immorial (ok, well, probably not that long, but you get the picture ). We all know that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You sure you want to give them that inch?

---

The religious right is an entirely different matter. If they have a say in this -- which I am guessing is the case -- that does up the stakes.

quote:

---

DL: 1) It's NOT scientifically sound. Period. Therefore, it has no business whatsoever being in a science class.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

The other isues you mention are obviously big ones, ram. But don't let the significance of this one get lost on you...

---

Don't worry, it's not. It just seems like this issue is a 'bastard child' of a much larger problem; that of undue influence and control by government and religious movements worldwide. All to one single end; control and maniplation of thought/behavior. It is not a root problem.

In any case, thanks for the insight guys.

Poi: There is a fundamental difference between ID cards in France and the US. As far as I know, you are one state, we are fifty.

We have the 10th Amendment which protects state sovereignty. The Feds have no business forcing the states -- which are to be treated as indepentdent Republics -- to comply (which they are doing, under threat of funding cuts).

That aside, other reasons for my opposition include the following. An NID system would not solve the problem that is inspiring it, namely terrorism and immigration; it will add to the slippery slope of surveillance and monitoring of US citizens; it mandates the creation of a national database on all citizens; and they would function as internal passports which can be used to monitor our movements.

WS said above that if we give the religious right an inch, they will take a mile. The same rule applies to government.

Out of curiosity, and not to sidetrack the thread too much, how would you feel if the EU decided that you were to scrap your French ID and have one of theirs, which would include -- but not be limited to -- biometric information, fingerprints, iris scans, an EU ID#, along with all the other information curently on your ID and then be compiled into a multi-national database?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 09-26-2005 22:02)

quote:

---

just that there was a greater force behind everything

---

Well that's just it Ram. Nobody knows... there is no proof... but they would have our children sit there in a science class and be told there's a 'greater force behind everything.' I think not. Unless of course it's that prognosticating penquin here abouts. =)

I know, I know. We're on the same team... for the most part.

My belief in God gives me a different perspective I suppose. Not in condoning this behavior, but what it will mean in the future.

In thinking this through, beyond this specific issue and into the realm of everything the religious right is working toward, I fear that down the road there will be a great backlash against all people of belief because of religious extremists, and I hate to think of that happening. Discrimination, harrassment, etc. is likely to pervade society as things get worse. A sort of reversal in roles. There has to be a balance, or else it just flips the other way and someday someone will tell me to renounce God or else.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Ram, no specific religon may be overtly mentioned, but the fact it is; right-wing xian groups prompting this silliness may give one reason to suspect it is fundamentalist xianity behind it all.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Ram, I don't think that necessarily will happen here in America, because of our religious history. However, I can concieve of something entirely different and terrifying sweeping across America. Some new form of discrimination that Satan can conjure up. I am thinking it is going to start with apathy and lead to Christianity being somthing "unpopular" or even a "religion of the uneducated." I hate to be a doomsayer, but if something doesn't happen soon, America could become even more spiritually dead than it is now.

Something interesting I found in your article DL:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/26/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

quote:

---

Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."

---

quote:

---

"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.

---

Huh? Is is just me or did one source comment that there is no debate in the scientific community, and the other did?

(aside note: something learned back in sophamore chemistry; theories of any sort cannot be proven, they can only be disproven)

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Huh? Is is just me or did one source comment that there is no debate in the scientific community, and the other did?

---

Yes. The proponent of ID, who would like people to think that ID is a valid scientific argument, stated that there is "controversy" in the scientific community.

This, like the idea of ID being a scientific issue, is a blatant falsehood. The only controversy comes when the religious and politically motivated attempt to push religion into science class.

There is no debate, among the scientific community, regarding this issue.

There are fringe groups, claiming to be based in science, who would like there to be.

quote:

---

theories of any sort cannot be proven, they can only be disproven

---

Very good, Gid! Now complete the thought...how do you disprove a "greater force behind everything" ?

You cannot.

That makes ID not even a theory, by definition.

And that is one of the many reasons that the scientific community is not "boiling over" about it. Most scientists are puzzled as to why ID is even being considered being taught alongside real science. It makes no sense. ID has nothing to do with science!

And in light of the new discoveries about the evolution of the eye, ID clearly has failed, at least in that area (things are much to complicated to have evolved; there must be a greater force behind everything) - but those religious kooks just ignore that (as they always have before - ignore that which you cannot discredit; ignore the facts ). It has been proven that the eye can evolve from simpler processes.

No "greater force" needed. For other examples, we just haven't discovered the actual mechanism that leads from point A to B. But we will, as other sciences advance (remember, it took major advances in genetics, to really start refining some of these processes for Evolution).

quote:

---

...we just haven't discovered the actual mechanism that leads from point A to B.
But we will...

---

Keep the faith! Hold the line!

Why do I get the impression that you *want* a particular outcome so much? And if you do, how can you call that good science? This is exactly what's wrong with the scientific community at large. It has become more about maintaining the ranks and holding fast to the same old thoughts and stifling anyone who dares to come up with different ones. If you want a description of that then read "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow.

Science should not be making the data fit your views but letting the data dictate our understanding. Just as so many are correct in pointing out how ridiculous it was for the authorities of Galileo's day to shut him up, so it should be for all of this talk of shutting up the mere mention that an intelligent force could have been involved in the origin of life.

I'm in complete agreement with Ramasax and others here that ID shouldn't be taught in science class. But to prevent it from being mentioned anywhere in the cirriculum? How can that be anything but blatant censorship? Face it, many of the should-be-called secular left want to maintain their monopoly on brainwashing our kids every bit as much as the other side wants it back.

I do not consider myself to be part of either extreme. I want more dialogue and discussion on this topic in our schools, not less. I want good sound scientific principles taught and valued, but I want this insane phobia of religion and our cultural heritage to stop. The Founders wanted to prevent the government from establishing any specific religion and I'm so thankful they set it up that way. Philosophical rationalism, for many, has become just that, a religion; and it should no more be forced onto our children as any other belief.

Of course, I do concede that many in the religious right see ID as a means to force creationism onto students. I also understand and share the concern that they will harm the proper teaching of science in our schools. But that is no excuse for denying:

quote:

---

From the first article:

...that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I want good sound scientific principles taught and valued, but I want this insane phobia of religion and our cultural heritage to stop.

---

I feel you very distinctly miss the real point here, Bugs.

It is *not* about a phobia of religion.

It is rather a very real and very warranted phobia of the religious, and their agendas.

While I understand your approach to the equation of Galileo, this is in *no* way a comparable situation (and let's not forget - it was the church that condemned Galileo...).

The concept of ID is simply not supported by scienctific evidence. It is *purely* conjecture by people who whish for their religious beliefs to hold true, and to be able to be taught as science to our children.

It is also essential to clarify: ID is NOT simply saying that god was behind all of what has happened in nature. ID states very specifically that science shows us that life is so complex that god *must* have been behind it. This is blatantly false.

This does not mean that god could *not* have been behind it. But the "scientific" claims of the ID movement are plain wrong, or are purely personal conjecture and opinion, unsupported by evidence.

Evolution, on the other hand, has a mountain of evidence behind it. While we don't know everything, we know a GREAT deal. The more we find, the more the idea of evolution is supported. Yes, many people *want* this to simply all fall into place. That is natural, no matter what side of anything you are on.
But in the case of evolution, the data is not being made to fit the view - the data supports the theory.
If the proponents of ID (or anyone else) comes up with something that contradicts the theory of evolution, I am sure there will be plenty of people up in arms. But you will most certainly see that the scientific community at large will take the information and continue with it like they always have.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

The Founders wanted to prevent the government from establishing any specific religion

---

1) ID is nothing more than biblical creationism dressed up.

2) Let's remove religion from the equation for a moment. Let's look at ID on its merits: it states conclusions that are simply not supported by any science whatsoever. Given this, why on earth would we push this into our science classes? It is absolutely baffling. Until....we put religion back into it. The ONLY reason ID is being pushed into school systems is promote religion. And it is very clear which religion is being promoted, even the language has been reduced to as little specificity as possible.

ID in our science class is nothing short of the bible in our science class.



(Edited by DL-44 on 09-27-2005 20:51)

Right! It is a religious theory and religion does not belong in the schools, period.

Let them teach it all they like in the churches.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I did not read every word of this thread, so I may have missed where someone already said this.

The real threat of ID is not that it is religeous indoctrination disguised as scientific theory (which it is).

The real danger is that if we allow it into the school system, it opens the door for anyone of any belief (religeous or not) to say, "I have a belief that is not backed up by any kind of scientific experiment or rational thought, but because I believe it you must teach this in the schools as a valid alternative to everything else that is taught or accepted."

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

and a fitting comic today:



http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/

=)

quote:

---

Why do I get the impression that you *want* a particular outcome so much? And if you do, how can you call that good science?

---

Errr...what outcome?

All I want (would like, would find interesting) is discovering how the process, the mechanism, that explains a bit of the unknown and makes it therefore known. Just like the eye, and how a "simple eye" can progress to a "complicated eye" (btw - this was one of the "keystones" of ID, and the mechanism has been found - that alone "disproves" ID - that which the IDers had said was "too complicated to explain through Evolution so there must be a Greater force behind it" proved to be false. It turns out that there is indeed a process, a mechanism behind it, and yes, it is an Evolutionary one).

I haven't said anything about an outcome. I'm talking about processes, mechanisms.

Evolution is already a fact. I'm interested in the mechanisms, the processes that drive it. How they work, how they came to be, and how they are developing.

If it was possible to prove that there was something behind Evolution (a Greater Force), I'm absolutely sure that Science would do so.

Problem is, it isn't possible.

I just want to let you all know I'll be working now for the Discovery Institute as an Intelligent Design researcher.

Can you believe someone's going to pay me to walk around going "Nope don't understand it.... must be god."

Cushiest Job in the world.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Would you be needing an assistant bitd? I mean Mr.bitdamaged, sir? =)

Not quite an update, but -
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/28/evolution.trial.ap/index.html

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools?

Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

If have seen others post about the irony of the, " The Scopes Monkey trial ", some 80 years later.

Are there similiarities or differences?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

^ Same... just in new packaging.

Yet that "New Packaging" stretches reality then, compared to the reality now.

Not to mention that the facts known then were minimal, compared to today's day & age.

Similarities abound, he was found guilty, and he did pay the fine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

Just to make sure we're on the same track here. When I say 'new packaging' ... I'm referrring to creationism now being hawked under the guise of 'intelligen design.' Science has made great strides but creationism, now called intelligent design, is based on 'faith' that a god of some description is responsible for everything, including the internet I suppose... which surely pisses of Al Gore I'm sure.

quote:

---

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools?

Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

---

And that sums it up in a nutshell.

Amen!

I don't even have a problem with topics such as Intelligent Design being taught in the school as long as they are clearly labeled as opinion and not an alternative proof to the scientific method of thinking.

It seems to me that these kinds of topics belong under the subject of Philosophy, not Biology, but if a science teacher wanted to take the time to expose students to ID (or TV advertising) as an example of non-critical thinking, that would work for me.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

quote:

---

Just to make sure we're on the same track here. When I say 'new packaging' ... I'm referrring to creationism now being hawked under the guise of 'intelligent design.

---

Yup I see that, and I am glad we see it the same way.

quote:

---

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools? Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

---

quote:

---

And that sums it up in a nutshell. Amen!

---

Is this sarcasm? WS, you don't really believe this dribble?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Zynx said:
Is this sarcasm? WS, you don't really believe this dribble?

---

So, you're saying this:

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools?

Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

---

Is dribble??

Could you elaborate on that please?

It is drivil. ID is a religious concept, not a scientific theory and as such has no place in schools.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)