Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

There has been no comment, and discerning viewers will have noticed, on my short coalition of interests which I speculatively gathered under the anti-ID banner. Not a peep, nor yet on the turf war on the Big Bang and the Cosmic microwave umpire. Just more empty bluster.

The "general consensus" so complacently referred to in the previous post consists in the main of four self-selecting individuals who are so bereft of ideas that they are unwilling or unable to respond to any of the important points I have raised regarding what we are likely to get if we embrace the anti-ID position and which is the only issue of consequence.

All of them would believe in goblins if to do so earned them a million dollars and enabled them to eat and drink without any ill effects and had the rest of us bowing down to them.

As far as I am aware the general consensus is for a religious tone to society and that consensus would probably reach 99% if the effects of an irreligious tone were explained properly to the public.

And it certainly doesn't look like a "ruined" thread to me but like all assertions the thing that matters is that they are believed by those uttering them because it reassures their insecurities.

Outside of such assertions the previous post has no content and Wolf is ill served if she believes otherwise.

Educators Question Absence of Evolution From List of Majors Eligible for New Grants
(By SAM KEAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 22, 2006)

Like a gap in the fossil record, evolutionary biology is missing from a list of majors that the U.S. Department of Education has deemed eligible for a new federal grant program designed to reward students majoring in engineering, mathematics, science, or certain foreign languages.

That absence apparently indicates that students in the evolutionary sciences do not qualify for the grants, and some observers are wondering whether the omission was deliberate.

The question arises at a time when evolution has become a political hot potato at all levels of education. While the theory of evolution has overwhelming support from scientists, some conservative Christian groups argue for alternative explanations of the origins of life, including "intelligent design," which holds that an intelligent agent guided the creation of life.

Even President Bush has weighed in, advocating teaching "both sides of the debate."

The awards in question -- known as Smart Grants, for the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent program -- were created by Congress this year, with strong support from the president. The grants are worth up to $4,000 and are awarded in addition to Pell grants.

Recipients must be college juniors or seniors enrolled in one of the technical fields of study that the Department of Education has deemed eligible for funds. Many different topics, as varied as astronomy and Arabic, qualify.

But evolutionary biology is absent.

The department has an index of classification numbers -- referred to as "CIP codes," for the Classification of Instructional Programs -- for all academic areas of instruction.

Under that classification scheme, there is a heading for "Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology," under which 10 biological fields are defined. For instance, ecology is 26.1301, and evolutionary biology is 26.1303.

But on a list that defines majors eligible for the grants, issued by the department in May, one of those 10 is missing. On that list, the classification numbers rise in order from 26.1301 to 26.1309 -- with the exception of a blank line where 26.1303, or evolutionary biology, would fall.

Lawrence M. Krauss, a physics professor at Case Western Reserve University and an outspoken defender of evolutionary sciences, noted the subject's absence from the list in a letter to the department.

"I'm not making any accusations," Mr. Krauss said in an interview on Monday. "I'm concerned it's not there."

Mr. Krauss said he sent the letter to the department when he learned of the absence, which he called "a serious omission."

He also asked for more openness in determining what majors qualify for Smart grants: "It would make sense to consult directly with organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and other professional scientific organizations asking for input."

Barmak Nassirian, an associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, also wrote to the department about the omission.

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Nassirian said the absence of evolutionary biology was disconcerting. "I'm hoping it's inadvertent and unintentional."

Officials from the Department of Education who could comment on the matter were not available, but a spokeswoman said she suspected that the absence of evolutionary biology was a "clerical consolidation of some kind," and that evolution might fall under other topics.

Indeed, the word "evolution" is not entirely absent from the registry of eligible majors. It is still listed as a subtopic under other fields eligible for Smart grants. For instance, paleontology and genetics, both of which draw on evolutionary theories, list "evolution" as a potential area of focus for students in those subjects. There is also an "other" category, under which studies of evolution might fall.

Still, the absence is conspicuous: the only major with evolution in its title was one of only three among the physical sciences that appears to have been deleted from the list. For unknown reasons, "behavioral sciences" and "exercise psychology" are also absent.

I'm sorry, but what are these important points? We've all dismissed them as meaningless extrapolations, because they were all assertions without proof, unless you're referring to some points I missed that time I decided to take a break from this board.

Quote:
All of them would believe in goblins if to do so earned them a million dollars and enabled them to eat and drink without any ill effects and had the rest of us bowing down to them.


Oh look, another one of Spendi's many assertions without proof.

That tone would never reach 99% if the irreligious tone were explained properly to the public, Spendi. After all, if you've failed to convince us your viewpoint is valid, how could you possibly convince 99% of the population. Do you really think we represent 1% of the population? That is naive.

And it certainly doesn't look like a "ruined" thread to me but like all assertions the thing that matters is that they are believed by those uttering them because it reassures their insecurities.


That explains you quite well, I must admit.

Well now... Spendi has just given me a sex change. If he remembers the fact that I'm gay, does that mean he thinks I'm a lesbian? Is this merely a typo or an example of wishful thinking?

Now, the pro-ID position has no merit whatsoever.

1. ID is not and has never been science, so it cannot be taught in a science class.

So, ID is not only bad science, it also won't fix the perceived problem you see, Spendi.

Quote:

Educators Question Absence of Evolution From List of Majors Eligible for New Grants
(By SAM KEAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 22, 2006)

Like a gap in the fossil record, evolutionary biology is missing from a list of majors that the U.S. Department of Education has deemed eligible for a new federal grant program designed to reward students majoring in engineering, mathematics, science, or certain foreign languages.

That absence apparently indicates that students in the evolutionary sciences do not qualify for the grants, and some observers are wondering whether the omission was deliberate.

The question arises at a time when evolution has become a political hot potato at all levels of education. While the theory of evolution has overwhelming support from scientists, some conservative Christian groups argue for alternative explanations of the origins of life, including "intelligent design," which holds that an intelligent agent guided the creation of life.

Even President Bush has weighed in, advocating teaching "both sides of the debate."

The awards in question -- known as Smart Grants, for the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent program -- were created by Congress this year, with strong support from the president. The grants are worth up to $4,000 and are awarded in addition to Pell grants.

Recipients must be college juniors or seniors enrolled in one of the technical fields of study that the Department of Education has deemed eligible for funds. Many different topics, as varied as astronomy and Arabic, qualify.

But evolutionary biology is absent.

The department has an index of classification numbers -- referred to as "CIP codes," for the Classification of Instructional Programs -- for all academic areas of instruction.

Under that classification scheme, there is a heading for "Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology," under which 10 biological fields are defined. For instance, ecology is 26.1301, and evolutionary biology is 26.1303.

But on a list that defines majors eligible for the grants, issued by the department in May, one of those 10 is missing. On that list, the classification numbers rise in order from 26.1301 to 26.1309 -- with the exception of a blank line where 26.1303, or evolutionary biology, would fall.

Lawrence M. Krauss, a physics professor at Case Western Reserve University and an outspoken defender of evolutionary sciences, noted the subject's absence from the list in a letter to the department.

"I'm not making any accusations," Mr. Krauss said in an interview on Monday. "I'm concerned it's not there."

Mr. Krauss said he sent the letter to the department when he learned of the absence, which he called "a serious omission."

He also asked for more openness in determining what majors qualify for Smart grants: "It would make sense to consult directly with organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and other professional scientific organizations asking for input."

Barmak Nassirian, an associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, also wrote to the department about the omission.

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Nassirian said the absence of evolutionary biology was disconcerting. "I'm hoping it's inadvertent and unintentional."

Officials from the Department of Education who could comment on the matter were not available, but a spokeswoman said she suspected that the absence of evolutionary biology was a "clerical consolidation of some kind," and that evolution might fall under other topics.

Indeed, the word "evolution" is not entirely absent from the registry of eligible majors. It is still listed as a subtopic under other fields eligible for Smart grants. For instance, paleontology and genetics, both of which draw on evolutionary theories, list "evolution" as a potential area of focus for students in those subjects. There is also an "other" category, under which studies of evolution might fall.

Still, the absence is conspicuous: the only major with evolution in its title was one of only three among the physical sciences that appears to have been deleted from the list. For unknown reasons, "behavioral sciences" and "exercise psychology" are also absent.

My feeling that anti-IDers are fundamentally anti-democracy is not proved by all this but it is suggestive. Lip service can cover up temperments to a certain extent.

What about that lot yesterday about the Big Bang fracas. I quoted some big time peer reviewers there.

What about the coalition of personally motivated groups who are collected under the ID banner. Which one in my list are you claiming I got wrong.

What about the girl in the pub. I couldn't have made that up. It's disgusting. It is sawing through one of the main support beams in our society. Get the family has been going on since TV got organised. Do you not know a simple thing like that.

Where is the anti-ID replacement for the beam? Give us a clue. It sure as hell isn't in any rock sediments or clotting mechanisms in some specially chosen marine organism.

"Unrelated issues" my backside. They are related alright.