Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Michael Behe Takes Another Turn as Expert
(Wesley R. Elsberry, The Panda's Thumb, May 16, 2007)

Let's say that you are counsel for the Association of Christian Schools. You are looking for an expert witness to stand up before the court and say that the biology and physics textbooks from Bob Jones University and A Beka are just peachy, and students taught from them should be accorded credit in biology and physics sufficient for admission to the University of California system. Who do you turn to? Naturally, you won't bother with a biologist and a physicist for this matter; what you obviously need is a biochemist. Fortunately, you know where to find one, and, hey, presto! Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Senior Fellow Michael Behe files an expert report on your behalf.

Here's a sample:
"General Conclusions Concerning Viewpoints and Biology Textbooks
All biology textbooks that were examined, both the approved texts and the Christian texts, contain material which is not strictly science, but which includes viewpoints, and all texts asked students to discuss non-scientific topics, such as religious, legal, political, ethical, or moral topics. In my opinion in this unanimous practice is pedagogically sound. Science does not exist in a vacuum, and students will naturally have questions about how science relates to other aspects of their world. Discussion of how scientific and other topics impinge on each other and interrelate with each other can equip students to integrate seemingly separate areas into a more coherent whole."

Darwin's Black Box and Icons of Evolution are cited by Behe in support of his expert report. He has a section extolling a "strengths and weaknesses" approach. And, Behe is going to get a cool $20,000 for his participation in the case.

$20 grand ain't much wande. It's only £10,000 and after tax I suppose there will only be about £6,000 left and he has to wear the best tailoring and drive a nice set of wheels and, I presume, the same applies to his wife and I don't suppose there'll be much left at the end of that what with one thing and another that a bloke in his position necessarily needs to keep up to a certain standard of decorum so that his words carry the requisite amount of weight.

I daresay a half-way decent pub will take in excess of that every week.

I think David Beckham makes that every 42 or 3 seconds. It's a flea-bite.

I bet it wouldn't buy the nose cone on a smart-bomb.

Do you need it spelling out mate?

I said it was a flea-bite. When I wrote that I did think of adding that that was stretching it a bit but I was pushed for time.

I would imagine that every item in the auction catalogue of Madame de Pompadour's effects, a long and shaming document, is today worth far more than $20,000. It took a few hours just to get through the fans.

How ya doin'? mapie? Is twenty grand a lot in your book?

Don't take up global economic theory whatever you do. You might end up thinking that not believing in God was your only claim to intellectual superiority.

Well- you see mapsie- wande was trying to make out that Mr Behe is a force in the land on the basis of this "cool $20,000."

It's his straw man.

Do you not understand the point? Ms Minogue can get that for wiggling her bottom and she's supposed to have had cancer.

All his life de Sade was obsessed by God. People who wish to denigrate him by calling him mad would have far more justification in calling him a religious, rather than a sexual, maniac. There is not a single one of his writings but is occupied with religion; quite a number deal with sex not at all, or at most summarily.

I do not think there are fifty pages in any of his works in which the subject is not mentioned. His knowledge of the literature concerned with it is encyclopedic. He would seem to know the Bible almost by heart; he quotes and deals with Christian apologists from the early Fathers to Scot, Fenelon, Pascal, and even more recent theologians; he mentions the Koran and Confucius; he deals in theological quibbles of the greatest niceness and subtlety; he is aware of the distinctions of the heresies which have at different times rent the Church; he discusses at length every one of its central dogmas.

All this learning is employed in an attack on God and the Church which for length and intensity can seldom have been equalled; he attacks them with reason, with ridicule, with imprecations, with blasphemy; he attacks them from the philosophical, the economic, the political, the ideal and the pragmatic angle; he ranges from the discussion of inconsistencies in the Bible (.....examples given...) to the Black Mass, from the history of the Papacy to the pre-Christian origin of the Eucharist, from the dogma of Hell to the economic foundations of the Church's property.

If you talk about the human being as being intelligently designed, you may need to consider all the very unintelligent features of the human body.

Link

I don't have any guarantees of the authenticity of this page, but it makes some valid points.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
(Donna C. Gregory, Chesterfield Observer, June 5, 2007)

How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?

It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.

In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."

Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students - not teachers - and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.

But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.

"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."

Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.

"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.

On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.

"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.

Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."

Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"

"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.

Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.

"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."

Students will begin using the new textbooks this fall.

Please, PLEASE, IDers out there in the woodwork... I want to hear an explanation for this.

strikie wrote-

Quote:

Please, PLEASE, IDers out there in the woodwork... I want to hear an explanation for this.

Infantile, simplistic teleology. Will that do?

Not even slightly plausible to anyone with a modicum of intelligence or education. Even an evolutionist would roll his eyes at such nonsense.

Yes- I will deny the existence of such things as "extra body parts". I had rather thought that my previous answer had done that but it was obviously too difficult to follow.

I couldn't understand the position of an evolutionist who didn't agree with me on that score.

Being able to wiggle one ears is a skill not to be sneezed at. I've met ladies who think it is a highly delightful addition to the corpus of masculine accomplishments.