0
   

Intelligent Design Retardation

 
 
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:25 pm
Gotta love the creationists for a good laugh; but it's not as funny as it used to be....

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

Quote:
Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools
Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism
Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer


Dover, Pa. -- The way they used to teach the origin of the species to high school students in this sleepy town of 1,800 people in southern Pennsylvania, said local school board member Angie Yingling disapprovingly, was that "we come from chimpanzees and apes."

Not anymore.

The school board has ordered that biology teachers at Dover Area High School make students "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. Their ninth-grade curriculum now must include the theory of "intelligent design," which posits that life is so complex and elaborate that some greater wisdom has to be behind it.

The decision, passed last month by a 6-to-3 vote, makes the 3,600-student school district about 20 miles south of Harrisburg the first in the United States to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, putting it on the front line of the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life.

The new curriculum, which prompted two school board members to resign, is expected to take effect in January. The school principal, Joel Riedel, and teachers contacted by The Chronicle refused to comment on the changes.

The idea of intelligent design was initiated by a small group of scientists to explain what they believe to be gaps in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which they say is "not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. "

On an intelligent-design Web site (www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org), the theory is described as "a scientific disagreement with the claim of evolutionary theory that natural phenomena are not designed.''

Critics such as Eugenie Scott, director of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, say the Dover school board's decision is part of a growing trend. Religious conservatives, critics say, have been waging a war against Darwin in classrooms since the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925. Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was convicted of illegally teaching evolution, but his conviction later was thrown out on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

"There's a constant impetus by conservative evangelical Christians to bring religion back into the public schools," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The end goal is to get rid of evolution. They view it as a threat to their religion."

The intelligent-design theory makes no reference to the Bible, and its proponents do not say who or what the greater force is behind the design. But Yingling, 46, who graduated from Dover High School in 1976, and other supporters of the new curriculum in this religiously conservative slice of rural Pennsylvania say they know exactly who the intelligent designer is.

"There's only one creator, and it has to be God," said Rebecca Cashman, 16, a sophomore at Dover High. She frowned when asked to recollect what she learned about evolution at school last year.

"Evolution -- is that the Darwin theory?" Cashman shook her head. "I don't know just what he was thinking!"

Patricia Nason at the Institute for Creation Research, the world leader in creation science, said her organization and other activist groups are encouraging people who share conservative religious beliefs to seek positions on local school boards.

"The movement is to get the truth out," Nason said by telephone from El Cajon (San Diego County). "We Christians have as much right to be involved in politics as evolutionists. We've been asleep for two generations, and it's time for us to come back."

Emboldened by their contribution to President Bush's re-election, conservative religious activists are using intelligent design as a new strategy of attacking evolution without mentioning God, Scott said.

"There is a new energy as a result of the last election, and I anticipate an even busier couple of years coming on," Scott said.

She called intelligent design "creationism lite" masquerading as science. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism -- which holds that God created the world about 6,000 years ago -- in public schools on the grounds of separation of church and state.

John West of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main sponsor and promoter of intelligent design, defended the theory he says addresses "evolution follies."

"Mainstream criticism should be raised in classrooms," West said.

The Dover school district's challenge to the primacy of evolution is not isolated. In Cobb County, Ga., parents sued a local school board for mandating that biology textbooks prominently display disclaimers stating that evolution is "not a fact." A federal court is expected to rule next month.

In Grantsburg, Wis., a school board revised its science curriculum to teach "various scientific models of theories of origin." In Charles County, Md. , the school board is considering a proposal to eliminate textbooks "biased toward evolution" from classrooms. Similar proposals have been considered this year in Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

"There is nothing random about this," said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "You might say it's a planned evolution of an attack on the science of evolution."

The drive to bring more religion and what have been labeled "moral values" into the classroom goes beyond challenges to Darwin's theory, Scott said. The Charles County school board also proposed to censor school reading lists of "immorality" or "foul language" and to allow the distribution of Bibles in schools. In Texas, the nation's second-biggest school textbook market, the State Board of Education approved health textbooks that defined abstinence as the only form of contraception and changed the description of marriage between "two people" to "a lifelong union between a husband and a wife."

"The religious right has a list of topics that it wants action on," Scott said. "Things like abortion, abstinence, gays are higher up in the food chain of their concern, but evolution is part of the package."

This drive has found fertile ground in this part of Pennsylvania, where billboards reading, "Many books inform but only the Bible transforms" line the road, and family restaurants offer free booklets titled "What the Bible says about moral purity" and "The Bible is God's word" at the door.

"These brochures give you an idea where some people in this community are coming from," said Jeff Brown, 54, who, along with his wife Carol, 57, resigned from the school board after they voted against changing the biology curriculum.

Yingling, who voted in favor, said she believes God created the world in six days and doesn't believe in evolution "at all." Another board member who supported the measure, William Buckingham, refused to say what he believes but has identified himself as a born-again Christian.

But religious beliefs or motivations should be beside the point, said Richard Thompson, an attorney who represents the board members. Thompson is the president of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., a pro-bono firm whose Web site promises "the sword and shield for the people of faith."

The decision was "supportive of academic freedom more than anything else, " Thompson said.

While not talking about his own religious convictions, Thompson added, "When you look at cell structure and you see the intricacy of the cell, you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't happen by natural selection, there has to be intelligent design." Thompson said he is ready to represent the board in the Supreme Court if it comes to that. Some parents and teachers in Dover already have asked the Pennsylvania ACLU to sue the board on their behalf. Walczak said the organization's legal team is studying the case before deciding whether to go to court.

Brown, the former school board member, says he is not arguing with other people's religious beliefs.

"Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with having these booklets where people can pick them up. But I do have a problem with people shoving this down the throats of our children on taxpayers' dollars," Brown said.

"I happen to believe both in God and evolution," he said, and his wife nodded: "Hear, hear."

The Browns appear to be in the minority. Although public schools have been teaching evolution for decades, a national Gallup poll in November 2004 showed that only 35 percent of those asked believed confidently that Darwin's theory was "supported by the evidence.'' More than one-third of those polled by CBS News later in November said creationism should be taught instead of evolution.

"A guy came up to me and said, 'Wait a minute, you believe in God and evolution at the same time? Evolution isn't in the Bible!' " said Brown, nibbling on a deep-fried mozzarella stick at the Shiloh Family Restaurant on Route 74. As he became more agitated, his voice grew louder, and other customers -- mostly gray-haired women and elderly men in baseball hats -- turned their heads to look at the couple. Carol Brown kept putting her index finger to her lips, gesturing for her husband to be quieter.

After the Browns left the restaurant, a waitress in her 30s slipped a note to a Chronicle reporter.

"Beware," it read. "God wrote over 2,000 years ago that there would be false prophets and teachers. If you would like to know the truth read the Bible."


Another Snopes trial should be coming along any day now.

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,339 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:31 pm
well, at least some of us have Evolved!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:41 pm
From the article:

Quote:
While not talking about his own religious convictions, Thompson added, "When you look at cell structure and you see the intricacy of the cell, you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't happen by natural selection, there has to be intelligent design." Thompson said he is ready to represent the board in the Supreme Court if it comes to that. Some parents and teachers in Dover already have asked the Pennsylvania ACLU to sue the board on their behalf. Walczak said the organization's legal team is studying the case before deciding whether to go to court.


The bolded part shows the biggest problem with the argument that ID proponents put forth; statements such as this one are not logical, and display a real lack of understanding of science.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
From the article:

Quote:
While not talking about his own religious convictions, Thompson added, "When you look at cell structure and you see the intricacy of the cell, you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't happen by natural selection, there has to be intelligent design." Thompson said he is ready to represent the board in the Supreme Court if it comes to that. Some parents and teachers in Dover already have asked the Pennsylvania ACLU to sue the board on their behalf. Walczak said the organization's legal team is studying the case before deciding whether to go to court.


The bolded part shows the biggest problem with the argument that ID proponents put forth; statements such as this one are not logical, and display a real lack of understanding of science.

Cycloptichorn


Maybe if Muslims wanted to push this forward you wouldn't have an issue seeing as how they can do no wrong in peoples eyes.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:45 pm
Quote:
Maybe if Muslims wanted to push this forward you wouldn't have an issue seeing as how they can do no wrong in peoples eyes.


Jesus, Baldi, that was the one of the worst straw men I've ever seen.

Take your crap to another thread, lol, this one is for making fun of people who don't understand the scientific process, not people who have a different religion than you...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:49 pm
Was this moved? I've never posted in general news before....

If so, why?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:53 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Maybe if Muslims wanted to push this forward you wouldn't have an issue seeing as how they can do no wrong in peoples eyes.


Muslims do teach that. I D is how science is taught in conservative muslim societies. But than you have to read a bit about modern conservative Islamic culture to know that. You might try reading anything by Bernard Lewis or perhaps "Islam and Modernity" by Cooper, Nettler, and Mahmoud .
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 02:59 pm
I'm a little conflicted on this one. I think it is important to point out that evolution is a theory. There is nothing unscientific about questioning an unproven theory. However, presenting an inferior theory as equal is a problem.

I remember my 9th grade science teacher as a Christian. When we came to that section in the book we had a classroom debate on it. We were still required to learn about evolution and its implications and how it came about, but we were free to discuss the controversy behind it. I don't really see a problem with an approach like that. It just isn't going to matter in most people's lives whether or not they believe in evolution. And those who have a mind to go into an anthropological or other scientific field will probably not be swayed by other scientifically inferior theories anyway.

But then there is another concern, and that is that this whole debate really is just the tip of the iceberg that is the growing conflict of religion and science in this country.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:16 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I'm a little conflicted on this one. I think it is important to point out that evolution is a theory. There is nothing unscientific about questioning an unproven theory. However, presenting an inferior theory as equal is a problem.


The only reason it is looked on as an "inferior" theory is because people hate religion and don't want anything to do with it. Creation is a valid theory but it must be taken with the same grain of salt as evolution.

Quote:
But then there is another concern, and that is that this whole debate really is just the tip of the iceberg that is the growing conflict of religion and science in this country.


It isn't a conflict between religion and science; it is a conflict between religion and secularism. There are plenty of scientists that are religious and don't see a conflict with their beliefs and their work. In fact I'm sure some of them use science to prove the history of the bible. Remember science is a way to see how the world around you works. Science is only at odds when they use science to disprove religion.

The people of the secular belief want to squash all religion from the public eye. They want to place all belief in religion, Christianity specifically into a dark hole and not let it out.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:29 pm
If you want to see what happens to science when religion gets a hold on a society, look at any conservative Islamic society. A 1000 years ago these cultures were in the fore front of scientific though and much of the basic knowledge on which western science was built came from them. Now they are not only behind but slipping further backward. Religion is the reason these countries are falling behind and you Baldimo want to join them.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 03:37 pm
Baldimo wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
I'm a little conflicted on this one. I think it is important to point out that evolution is a theory. There is nothing unscientific about questioning an unproven theory. However, presenting an inferior theory as equal is a problem.


The only reason it is looked on as an "inferior" theory is because people hate religion and don't want anything to do with it. Creation is a valid theory but it must be taken with the same grain of salt as evolution.



It is inferior in the sense that there is much less scientific evidence to back it up. Personally I think it's possible that the two theories could coincide, but I'd be bullshitting if I said that, based on the evidence, one was just as likely as the other.

Quote:


It isn't a conflict between religion and science; it is a conflict between religion and secularism. There are plenty of scientists that are religious and don't see a conflict with their beliefs and their work. In fact I'm sure some of them use science to prove the history of the bible. Remember science is a way to see how the world around you works. Science is only at odds when they use science to disprove religion.

The people of the secular belief want to squash all religion from the public eye. They want to place all belief in religion, Christianity specifically into a dark hole and not let it out.


Science is secular by its nature. The truth is that it's the Big Bang Theory that challenges religion and Christianity, not evolution. Evolution just says that species evolve. There is no reason why the evolution of species precludes God's existence. If those plenty of christian scientists can deal with it, why can't the rest of us?
0 Replies
 
flamb boy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:19 am
I think that everyone needs to take a step back and put a little perspective on everything.
First of all, evolution is a theory that is very flexible; it has had to be that in order to survive from being a taboo minority opinion, to the mainstream opinion help by academics in our society.

Intelligent design, (ID) more or less takes advantage of information that was not available at the time that Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution.

There are many books on ID and for those of you that want to be able to seriously argue against ID, I suggest that you give some of the books a try, by far the most popular of these books in "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. Some other books include, but certainly are not limited to, "Darwin's God" which argues the idea that Darwin came up with Evolution because a supernatural god did meet Darwin's expectations in nature, and the "Fingerprint of God" by Huge Ross, which I must say is an absolutely fascinating book about cosmology and religion and how there are ways for science to prove and disprove religion using the empirical evidence of astronomy; contrary to some people's believe, you really can't do this with biology, because in this field it is easy to drawn your own conclusions from observations. (i.e. before Darwinism the popular believe was that homology reflected a common designer. The reason you see five digits repeated throughout nature is very much the same reason that almost all Ford vehicles basically have the parts; they are all just modified for the different models. An intelligent force first designs a vehicle for Ford, and then modifies to make different models. But Evolutionist like to use the fact that many animals have the five digit pattern as evidence for a common ancestor). So while many people like to use evidence from the field of biology to prove or disprove a religion, in most cases it can't because the conclusions drawn are biased. Yet with astronomy there is very little room for interpretation. (i.e. when scientists saw the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collision with Jupiter, they realized that it is important to have gas giants in outer orbit to protect the Earth from life killing collisions)

But anyways, I'm going off a long tangent with that one... Concerning "Darwin's Black Box," which was published in 1996 and more or less started the ID movement, the biggest challenge to Evolution is the fact that there are irreducibly complex machines found many times throughout nature. A good example of an irreducibly complex machine is a mousetrap. If you remove one part of a mousetrap, it will no longer be able to catch mice. If there is no base there is nothing holding everything together, no spring means there's nothing to power the mousetrap, no pin means the spring isn't held in place... you get the idea. So if you take away one part of an irreducibly complex machine you now are left with a bunch of parts that do not serve a useful purpose.

Now, the concept of natural selection says that non-beneficial characteristics are bred out of species, and the beneficial characteristics are bred into a species. These beneficial characteristics, develope one, or maybe even two (which is near to impossible to have happen in a natural setting) mutations at a time. The good mutations put the creature at an advantage so they stay and the bad mutations put a creature at a disadvantage so they don't stay. So basically, if something is not helping a creature, it is bred out of the creature.

The problem arrives when you have an irreducibly complex machine found in a living organism. You need to have every part in place for something beneficial to happen, if you are missing just one part the creature is using biochemical energy by making the rest of the parts and not getting benefits from this expenditure of biochemical energy. To make things a bit easier to understand, let's look at blood clotting. Now blood clotting is a very complex process that involved many proteins (http://intelligentdesign.org/behe/chart.htm) and if you are missing just one of the proteins one of several things happens; the clot never forms and the animal bleeds to death, the animal is injured and a begins to form, but then does not stop forming, clogging the blood vessels and killing the animal, or the clot will form even though there no injury to the animal and will continue to form out of control and eventually clog the animal's blood vessels. So if one part of the sequence is missing, the animal is dead.

Yet, natural selection works with little changes, and successive mutations building upon each other. But for natural selection to have produced the mechanism for blood clotting, there would not have been an opportunity for successive mutations to take place, if just a few of the mutations took place and not all of them, the animal would die. The many mutations required would have all had to happen at once. If they built upon each other slowly, they animal would have been put at a disadvantage because it would be using more biochemical energy than its competitors, and not getting any positive results from it. The small steps, if they did happen, would have been bred out of the creature because they would have been non-beneficial. Realistically, the odds of all fo the many required mutations happening at once, and all of those mutations working together harmoniously to benefit the creature, are astronomical. I daresay that that it is a statistical impossibility for it to have happened that way.

Another example of an irreducibly complex machine is the mechanism involved in converting a photon of light into an electrical impulse that can be interpreted by the brain, but I am getting kind of tired and don't feel like explaining that one.

So you see, ID is not an excuse used to put creation in the classroom, it is in reality a natural progression of science. Darwin was a good scientist because he found that the accepted theory of the origin of life wasn't supported by science. He asked questions and when there wasn't an adequate answer, he came up with an answer himself. ID is a result of the same process. Scientists have found situations that are not supported by the mainstream theory, so they came up with a new theory capable of answering these new situations. If Darwin had known back then what we know now, it is doubtful that he would have proposed a purely random force that created life. Remember, back in the 19th century, the cell was not a complex machine, but just a blob of protoplasm.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 01:49 am
flamb boy - good post.

I marvel at how haughty the evolutionists get, when someone tries to carry on a dialogue 'pro and con'. They can't explain why the fossil record begins with already complex creatures with no apparent ancestry, but they sure can snort down their noses.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:54 am
How does ID explain the appearance of life on earth?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 02:55 am
InfraBlue wrote:
How does ID explain the appearance of life on earth?


Uh... well, they say an intelligent God created it.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 09:25 pm
Ok.

How did this intelligent God create it?
0 Replies
 
flamb boy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:01 pm
First of all, I would like to apologize for all the typos and bad grammar in my last post, I find it rather embarressing.

To answer the latest question, "How did this intelligent god create it [life]?" I'm not going to make up an answer, no one knows. Nor is it possible for anyone to know. The whole point of the ID movement is that life coming about by itself is so extremely unlikely that is would have required a miricle. A.K.A. divine intervention. If we were able to fully explain and understand how a divine act could have come about, then either we would have to have god-like powers, (which would be kind of cool) or the act would just not be divine. Yet, we call the act divine because it requires a power/force that is beyond human comprehension.

If you guys really want to see something interesting, you should go to this website and read this article. I espically appreachiate this website because, unlike many forums and blog spots, this website references everyfact of information they put out.

(http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/20020502_life_support_body_prob.shtml)

The article I have a link to talks about the condictions necessary for life and the chances of all of the condictions happening at once by purely natural means. Now, I can't even begin to understand everything at this site, and it will give me a headache if I read too many articles in one sitting.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2005 08:19 am
It's extremely unlikely that someone should win the lottery, yet people do. It's extremely unlikely that someone should be hit by lightning, yet people do. It's extremely unlikely that someone should be attacked by a shark, but people do.

Odds are funny things.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2005 09:52 am
OK, lets assume for a moment that God created everything...

How did God arrive on the scene?

ID just pushes the questions back one level.


As for irreducibly complex machines: you think the current design of a mousetrap was the first one someone tried? The design of mousetraps evolved.

Plus the examples you gave aren't exactly irreducibly complex. There are many types of eyes, ranging from photosensitive spots all the way up to the complexity of a vertibrate's eye. Intermediate stages do exist in nature.

The same is true for circulatory systems.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2005 01:58 pm
flamb_boy wrote:
Concerning "Darwin's Black Box," which was published in 1996 and more or less started the ID movement, the biggest challenge to Evolution is the fact that there are irreducibly complex machines found many times throughout nature.


The arguments for Irreducibly Complexity which Behe cites are invalid for a variety of reasons. Each example he used made certain assumptions about the biology involved which proved to be invalid.

flamb_boy wrote:
A good example of an irreducibly complex machine is a mousetrap. If you remove one part of a mousetrap, it will no longer be able to catch mice. If there is no base there is nothing holding everything together, no spring means there's nothing to power the mousetrap, no pin means the spring isn't held in place... you get the idea.


The falacy of an irreducibly complex mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity in biological evolution has been dealt with thoroughly...

Quote:
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong."


Sources: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml#intro
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Intelligent Design Retardation
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 12:26:50