Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

More on the California Creationist Lawsuit
(Mike Dunford, ScienceBlogs.com, August 30, 2007)

The complaint is over one hundred pages in length, and I have found material that I'd like to comment on very early in the complaint. Since both my time and my tolerance for this type of thing are limited, it will probably take several posts over several days for me to wade through everything.

The text of the complaint begins on page two: "Plaintiffs state this complaint against defendants, for viewpoint discrimination and content discrimination by defendants toward Christian school instruction and texts, which violates the constitutional rights of Christian schools and students to freedom of speech, freedom from viewpoint discrimination, freedom of religion and association, freedom from arbitrary governmental discretion, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from hostility toward religion."

"Content discrimination". What a wonderful phrase. It makes it sound like there is somehow something wrong with evaluating the worth of courses based on the material that is being taught. I wonder what comes after this. The next step doesn't even need to be from one of these creationist groups. Instead, it could be a homeopath suing a state medical board for a license on the grounds that the state board exams constitute an unfair "content discrimination" favoring conventional medicine over the spiritual doctrines of homeopathy. After that, let's go ahead and license the bloodletters and spiritual healers.

Let's get one thing straight right from the start. The University of California absolutely discriminated against the content contained in those textbooks, and that is a good thing. It means that they decided to actually make sure that classes claiming to teach, for example, biology actually teach biology. Based on what I've seen of the Bob Jones "biology" curriculum, the Christian School courses in question do not teach Biology. They certainly, and by their own admission, do not put science first. Call me crazy, call me biased, call me anti-Christian if you want, but I think that the main book used in a science class should put science first. I'm just strange like that.

"M. T. is a rising senior, suing through parent T. TAYLOR, whose SAT I scores and, on information and belief, SAT Reasoning Test scores would otherwise qualify for admission, but who is discriminated against and excluded from University of California and California State University institutions because some courses at Calvary Christian School are disqualified from approval as a-g curriculum because of the Christian viewpoint added to standard subject matter presentation in those courses and their texts."

That's a very interesting perspective. It's not one that has much of a basis in reality, but it's interesting nonetheless. While I cannot speak to the situation with any of the other questioned courses, the problem with the biology text is that it does not, in fact, teach the "standard subject matter presentation". Further, the "Christian viewpoint" is not an addition to the text, it is the main focus of the text: "The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second...If...at any point God's Word is not put first, the authors apologize."

Although the authors should, perhaps, be complimented for their forthrightness, a science textbook that puts a particular interpretation of Christianity before the science does not exactly constitute "standard subject matter" with a dash of Christianity added for flavor. It is, instead, apologetics trying to hide in a lab coat.

You will also find this: "God created humans and all of the other kinds of organisms with the ability to reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:12, 21, 25, 28); therefore, humans reproduce humans, oak trees reproduce oak trees, and cats reproduce cats. The idea of all life forms descending from a common ancestor cell that originated from non-living chemicals is absurd."

"Evolution is absurd" is hardly "standard subject matter" for a secondary school biology textbook. Nor, for that matter, are in-line references to bible verses.

As I have said before, and will undoubtedly say again, Colleges and Universities have the right to set criteria for incoming students. They also have, or should have, the right to examine the curricula, grading systems, textbooks, and other components of required courses in order to ensure that they in fact meet the criteria. If institutions of higher learning do not have this right, then they might as well not have admission criteria, as there will be no way to enforce them.

If the schools in question want to keep teaching biology the way that they have been, then that is their right. It is their private school, and they can take the actions that they see fit when it comes to setting up their classes.

But actions have consequences, and one of the consequences is that colleges might not accept these courses as constituting adequate preparation. If parents decide not to enroll their children in a school that does not adequately prepare its students for higher education, and the school financially suffers as a result, that, too, is a consequence.

The plaintiffs in this suit are not asking to be protected from discrimination; they are asking to have their cake and eat it too. They want the religious freedom to teach whatever they want, but then they want to be protected from the consequences of not having taught what colleges want their students to know. Unfortunately for them, the right to escape the unpleasant consequences of your actions is not a civil right.

Unfortunately for them, the right to escape the unpleasant consequences of your actions is not a civil right.

What a wonderful phrase. It makes it sound like there is somehow something wrong with evaluating the worth of courses based on the material that is being taught.

Call me crazy, call me biased, call me anti-Christian if you want, but I think that the main book used in a science class should put science first. I'm just strange like that.

But actions have consequences, and one of the consequences is that colleges might not accept these courses as constituting adequate preparation.

In all these cases, we may suppose that there is an external stimulus, but the cerebral part of the causal chain is unusual, so that there is not in the outside world something connected with what we are imagining in the same wayas in normal perception. Yet in such cases we quite clearly know what is happening to us; we can, for example, often remember our dreams. They may be accompanied by movements, but knowledge of them is not knowledge of these movements. Indeed all knowledge as to movements of matter is inferential, and the knowledge which a scientific man should take as constituting his primary data is more like our knowledge of dreams than like our knowledge of the movements of rats or heavenly bodies.

To this extent, I should say, Descartes is in the right as against Watson. Watson's position seems to rest upon naive realism as regards the physical world, but naive realism is destroyed by what physics itself has to say concerning physical causation and the antecedents of our perceptions. On these grounds, I hold that self-observation can and does give us knowledge which is not part of physics, and that there is no reason to deny the reality of "thought".

Naturalists From State Parks To Visit Creation Museum
(Associated Press, September 1, 2007)

Carey Tichenor has decided to see in person what he's up against.

Tichenor, chief naturalist in the Kentucky Department of Parks, is planning a trip to the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. The trip became something of a necessity after three months of people who visited the museum challenging Tichenor and other naturalists when they tried to teach visitors about the ancient natural history of Kentucky's parks, Tichenor said.

"Visitors are asking, 'Well, it said this at the Creation Museum, but you all are saying something different,' " Tichenor said.

The Creation Museum, which presents the Bible's creation story as fact supported by science, was opened in late May in Petersburg by the Answers in Genesis Christian ministry. And there might be millions of years of difference between what a tourist is told one day at the museum and the next day at a state park.

Tichenor said naturalists at the park interpret the geologic history based on science and talk about history that dates back millions of years sometimes.

"The theory of creationism is that the world is only 6,000 years old," Tichenor said.

Plans call for as many as 18 park naturalists to visit the museum on Nov. 1. Tichenor said group-rate tickets will cost taxpayers about $338. The goal of the trip is so naturalists can directly address concerns from people who have visited the Creation Museum, not dissuade anyone from their religious beliefs, Tichenor said.

"We will tell the person if they want to believe what they saw at the Creation Museum that's fine and good," he said. "And then we explain to them why we are saying what we say at the park -- which is interpreting the scientific evidence produced for the site."

The Creation Museum, though, has no problem with challenging the scientific beliefs of the park naturalists.
"I hope they can carve out some time to meet with some of our Ph.D. scientists," said Mark Looy, spokesman for the museum.

Looy said he's happy that some of the more than 178,000 visitors to the museum are challenging what is taught by the park naturalists.

"I'm encouraged that our museum guests are looking at things from a different point of view and using their critical thinking skills," he said.

The visit by the naturalists comes after the Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau removed from its Web site some language it had used to promote the Creation Museum.

The wording, which last week was used to describe the museum on the bureau's Web site, drew criticism from the head of the Kentucky Paleontological Society. It said, in part, "This 'walk through history' museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture."

Daniel Phelps, the paleontology society president, said the tax-supported visitors bureau should not have used the museum's language because museums don't aim to turn anyone against religion.

The wording was changed on Friday to: "A walk through history via the pages of the Bible - exploring how scripture provides an eyewitness account of the beginning of all things."

Phelps said at least the new language was not inflammatory.

"I worry about separation of church and state, but at the same time, it is a local tourist attraction, so it's probably not something we should be concerned about anymore," Phelps said.

Officials from the Creation Museum and from the visitors bureau could not be reached for comment Friday evening.

And there might be millions of years of difference between what a tourist is told one day at the museum and the next day at a state park.

Officials from the Creation Museum and from the visitors bureau could not be reached for comment Friday evening.

The usual stuff from an organ of Intelligent Design pushing for a religious agenda for obvious financial gain.

Nothing but banal assertions based on the assumption that their readers are stupid or tired which is probably a reasonable assumption to make.

Tory ignites creationism debate
(RICHARD BRENNAN, TORONTO STAR, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007)

Christian schools would still be able to teach creationism, even if they got public funding, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said yesterday.

"They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs," Tory told reporters, after touring a Jewish school in Thornhill.

"It's still called the theory of evolution," Tory said.

He was later forced to issue a clarification that his proposal would allow creationism to be discussed only as part of religious studies programming, as is now the practice in Ontario's publicly funded Catholic schools, and not in science classes.

The clarification from the party office stated that the "Ontario curriculum does not allow for creationism (or any other religious theory) to be taught in science classes in Ontario's public schools," and that Tory "clearly stated that any school to be included in the proposal (for funding) must teach the Ontario curriculum."

Creationism is the view that all things on Earth were created directly by God, as described in the Book of Genesis.

Tory told reporters that providing $400 million for religious schools that agree to teach the Ontario curriculum and hire certified teachers is a matter of principle and that he is prepared to put his bid to become premier on the line to defend it.

Critics have said there is no way to police what teachings religious schools are promoting despite Tory's assurance they would be forced to teach the provincial curriculum.

Tory lashed out at critics of his proposal, calling them fearmongers determined to exclude different faiths from the public school system. "It's not time for fearmongering. It is time for open, honest examination of what we can do to better public education and build a more inclusive Ontario," Tory said.

Education Minister Kathleen Wynne said Tory's comments about allowing creationism to be taught in faith-based schools are a further sign that he's making up the rules as he goes along.

"This is again the lack of clarity that he has about what his policy would actually mean and how it would actually be implemented, and it's a distraction from what the publicly funded system needs right now, which is more support and more resources, which is what we've been doing," Wynne told reporters.

Critics have said there is no way to police what teachings religious schools are promoting

Creationism is the view that all things on Earth were created directly by God, as described in the Book of Genesis.

The usual stuff from an organ of Intelligent Design pushing for a religious agenda for obvious financial gain.

Where has Wolf gone?

She said I wrote this-

Quote:

The usual stuff from an organ of Intelligent Design pushing for a religious agenda for obvious financial gain.

and I don't think I did. And if I didn't, and I'm pretty sure I didn't, then to quote me as having done must by the very worst offence a member can possibly commit.

But she's an anti-IDer so I suppose it's alright.

Anyway, I was making a point that the ID crowd is doing exactly what you were accusing the anti-ID crowd of doing.

ID is full of banal assertions that have been disproved ages ago, like the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum, the eye, irreducible complexity in general...

Then again, I nearly forgot about the way you make vague posts that can be reinterpeted however you see fit if we try to call you into question for them.

Not to mention that you resort to insults very easily. (Actually, I may be thinking of someone else on that last point).

So, what position on ID have you taken this time round?

The concept of intelligent design is mystical. In one limited sense it may only be a last ditch attempt, which may well fail, although I don't think so, to prevent atheistic materialism taking over every aspect of our lives and, what is much more important, the lives of future generations.

The thinking behind the stunt at Nipplegate. How about sub-Primes. Somebody knew the bottom line. Enron. The power outage ramps.

The concept of intelligent design is trying to put fingers in holes in the dyke(I HOPE SHE CONCURS) now that Creationism has been forced to give up in most places. Especially cities. It isn't simple.

The concept of intelligent design is mystical. In one limited sense it may only be a last ditch attempt, which may well fail, although I don't think so, to prevent atheistic materialism taking over every aspect of our lives and, what is much more important, the lives of future generations. As things stand contemporary atheistic materialists have been brought up in a reasonably Christian environment which prevents them living out the logic of their position. They are atheists when they want to be.