Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

I don't believe the argument was ever REALLY about evolution.

Quite so. The argument has been over what final authority communities ought to organize around. The significance of Darwin is surely that his 'construct' provided a compelling explanatory system which replaced another which had previously functioned as final authority. The upset at this replacement is cognitive dissonance on the individual level and on the group level, functional confusion and the loss of priviledged status to those who previously held it.

Though there were certainly more than a few Luddites who resisted Darwin's eminently observable construct, what really aroused their resistence was the insistence by many (not all) of the advocates of 'educational reform" that all reference to a creator be removed from the public education curricula - not just science classes, all of it. The result that even the "stupid" Luddites were able to guess, was widespread indoctrination in a tacit atheism, that the public was not - and to a large degree still is not - willing to accept.

Probably true, in part. On the other hand, there is a very important educational project which we've taken from the greeks to discern between indoctrination and empirical observation and rationalism. As I suggested previously, you likely wouldn't be happy with the insertion of non-christian theology into our schools.

Quote:

Amnerican advocates of "scientific" education from Dewey on have established a consistently poor track record.

Even if you might demonstrate this to be broadly true, which you would have a bloody difficult time trying to figure out how to do, you could not validly simply assume that the causal factor here is what you suggest (lack of a religious component).

Quote:

It is remarkable that these ideas remain so attractive even in the face of the readily observable indications of their failure that are all around us, This, ironically, is quite analogous to the resistence to Darwin's Theory that persist in some quarters.

As above. I mean, how well do you think that a madrassa does the education job? Would you be willing, as another example, to compare the product of a Brit public school (by which we mean private) with no or minimal religious components in its curricula to the students of an evangelical school in Lubbock?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The thing I find most humorous is the acceptance of some kind of Truth system that had to be REVEALED. ...

I think that, as a rational human being, were I in need of some spiritual guidance, Id probably look to Judaism. It has a major god who is totally transcendant after a period of history, with no promises of afterlives and moogah boogah bullshit that (like spendis case) requires all human endeavors to be "blessed" by some guy in the sky.

georgeob-I consider myself a student taught in the Jesuit tradition and Ive incorporated what was taught me, that ya cant deny evidence.
Im in Jezzy recovery.

I doubt that you would find solace in the Old Testament. Not only is that the source iof the creationism you so despise, its "major god" was a fairly tough customer, hardly up to contemporary standards for fair play to the Philistines and Cannanites - attitudes that prevail even today. Indeed he was rather ruthless with his most loyal (and human) servants like Saul, while preferring some fairly flawed and narcissistic types like David.

I agree with you about the revealed truth bit. One, in pondering his condition and orienting his world view, must proceed from the evidence - and from reason. All very Jesuitical.

What then is it that you are recovering from?

0 Replies

Quote:

The whole idea of Christianity is to try to mitigate the natural evolved selfishness (original sin).

Godammit spendi. You REALLY need to review Berlin's essay. You keep aiming for the over-arching simple, the absolute, the One Big Thing. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/Essays/Hedge_n_Fox.htm

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

bequeathed by that little group of dusty goat-herding nomads from the tigris delta.

If you think that Bernie no wonder you are all confused.

0 Replies

BErnie says

Quote:

12 step here might be awkward

More than that, it would be rather circular. Very Happy

georgeob says

Quote:

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:38 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe the argument was ever REALLY about evolution. Though there were certainly more than a few Luddites who resisted Darwin's eminently observable construct, what really aroused their resistence was the insistence by many (not all) of the advocates of 'educational reform" that all reference to a creator be removed from the public education curricula - not just science classes, all of it

Well, that may be a response that was triggered by the religious views in the early 20th century to prevent any mention of other than a literal interpretation of genesis in the early public schools.
Remember, and its all linked,
First there was NEVER teach evolution

Then it was , if you teach evolution, you must include "equal time " for Fundamentalism

Then there was Never teach Creationism

All the while a separate and equal arguments regarding the "Establishment clause" were being framed by advocates on both sides,
I have no problem with school prayer of "moments of silence" or whatever spiritual guidance that is desired to be incorporated into a schools day. (Theres room for anyone to opt in or opt out). I believe that the complete sanitization of the schools is extreme and uncalled for. However, I guess its the price that must be paid to keep the minority doctrines out of science or any other courses that could include religious references as guidance , (not merely for historical reference)

Spendi doesnt have the confidence that our kids have the common sense of a turnip, I feel otherwise. As an example, most parochial schools turn out fairly well educated kids, knowledgeable in sciences and culture.
(We used to open our science classes with a series of HAil MAry"s then the brothers would drop any further mention except when, in evolution, they did give a historical account of how the Church "evolved " its doctrine of "special creation" and how that lasted but 20 years as further evidence piled up.)

0 Replies

I love the Old Testament. At the same time, I find the main character in it possibly the most odious creature ever to walk through a human mind.

0 Replies

I read the first paragraph Bernie and it is incoherent as far as I'm concerned. The basic metaphor of it is rubbish. Foxes and hedgehogs don't 'know' anything at all in the sense we use the word. And to the extent that we allow that they do why does the fox know more than the hedgehog? Does he hammer know more than the nail?

And why are you suddenly allowing figurative interpretations when you reject them in the Bible.

The piece is not even sophistry.

0 Replies

Quote:

What then is it that you are recovering from?

Jesuits were always on the cusp of heretical beliefs, so the church I grew up in made a special event of "reaffirming faith" . I never asked , but I always wondered how many of the priests or brothers believed their own copy.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I read the first paragraph Bernie and it is incoherent as far as I'm concerned. The basic metaphor of it is rubbish. Foxes and hedgehogs don't 'know' anything at all in the sense we use the word. And to the extent that we allow that they do why does the fox know more than the hedgehog? Does he hammer know more than the nail?

And why are you suddenly allowing figurative interpretations when you reject them in the Bible.

The piece is not even sophistry.

Well, I'm sorry you won't give it (or Berlin) a quiet slow read. Heck, even Thatcher had him over for dinner quite regularly. He died about a decade ago. I think, for the english-speaking world, he's one of the great minds of the last century.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Spendi doesnt have the confidence that our kids have the common sense of a turnip,

On the contrary my dear. The application of common sense to evolution theory, unmitigated as your side wish, by your brightest and best is my main concern. People who continue to use assertions of that nature are bloody turnips. The weight your sentence carries doesn't merit the effort of typing it. It is weightless. Blather. It insults our viewers.

I think it you who underestimate your kids not me. A bloke getting heavy security round his property is not underestimating burglers.

0 Replies

Bernie-

A fair number of those Mrs Thatcher had for dinner most sensible people wouldn't allow over their threshold.

I read the first paragraph twice and slow enough. The categories he sticks those writers in is arrogance out of control. And notice the sneaky qualifiers. He piles them up.

"They stamped him and they labelled him
Like they do with pants and shirts."

He's one of that sort.

That first paragraph is complete and utter twaddle. I was being a bit polite before.

0 Replies

Quote:

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:29 pm Post: 2917669 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fm wrote-

Quote:
Spendi doesnt have the confidence that our kids have the common sense of a turnip,

On the contrary my dear. The application of common sense to evolution theory, unmitigated as your side wish, by your brightest and best is my main concern. People who continue to use assertions of that nature are bloody turnips. The weight your sentence carries doesn't merit the effort of typing it. It is weightless. Blather. It insults our viewers.

I think it you who underestimate your kids not me. A bloke getting heavy security round his property is not underestimating burglers.

Im not going to waste any time on your blather but, the readers of this thread know, from your past missives, youve spoken with disdain about the "mush headed children" and "low classes " and gamma minuses" all vague references to my very point. (Assertion+evidence=FACT)

I understand that, in your attempt to be contrarian, you must take a fresh stance each day, rather than merely sticking with some truth.

If you are so bored by our responses, why do you tell us that your (then) subsequent response wasnt even worth conjuring? Why not go and kick a rugby melon around and then go to some pub and get sloshed. Very Happy

0 Replies

Are you not aware fm that I use expressions such as "beta minuses" ironically. I am taking the piss out of the categories of social scientists who work with those categories like you work with rocks.

Compare and contrast the adverts in Coronation Street and in a Test Match. Or in a tabloid and the FT. Or in HSBC policy and that of Coutts.

0 Replies

Huxley used the terms "alphas", "betas" and "gammas" in the same way. He thought that's how a scientific society would logically be structured.

The bottled baby thing was a mere literary conceit to cover for the inadmissibilty of the obvious alternative which would have been too much for a publisher to dare at that time.

You look a bit turnipy saying that you are not going to waste your time on my blather but.....

Once you go past that "but" you have proved your first bit to be bullshit.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Why not go and kick a rugby melon around and then go to some pub and get sloshed.

Why don't you go drive a tractor round a field aggressively for a while and then sit grumpily in your rocking chair watching Torchwood until it is bo-boes time.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
What then is it that you are recovering from?

Jesuits were always on the cusp of heretical beliefs, so the church I grew up in made a special event of "reaffirming faith" . I never asked , but I always wondered how many of the priests or brothers believed their own copy.

My recollection of this was hearing that we all are doomed to dance around these questions; that certainty in human terms was available to no one; that one could choose between a tense existence on the rasor's edge or the conscious (or more commonly tacit) adoption of faith in one direction or the other. The choice of faith in God was described as more practically workable, more consistent with the human spirit, and requiring fewer assumptions than the alternative.

0 Replies

That is certainly one way of travelling george.

Spendi--the points that Huixley made were in the form of fiction. Dr Mond was, in my recollection, a pharoanic being.

0 Replies

I thought Mond was a reference to the man who founded ICI.

It was social commentary dressed up as fiction. But it's a long time since I read it. It was a bit naive IMO. The subject was really too big.

0 Replies

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Overdue Change
(Editorial, Orlando Sentinel, October 27, 2007)

It's taken seven years, but Florida is on its way to developing a science curriculum for the new millennium -- one that requires teachers openly and vigorously to teach about evolution.

This is a big improvement over the current science curriculum in the "Sunshine State Standards" in place since 1996. Under those standards, it required teaching Charles Darwin's universally accepted theory without using the word "evolution." That's like describing an elephant without using the word "trunk."

That compromise 11 years ago was aimed at avoiding the religious and political battle over whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution as science. In 2005, Gov. Jeb Bush's education department punted again, agreeing to delay rewriting the curriculum past the 2006 elections for fear it might become an issue in the governor's race.

So Florida avoided the fight over teaching intelligent design, the latest guise for creationism. But at what cost?

Since 1996, Florida's students have fallen behind much of the rest of the country and the world in science proficiency.

Now the public gets to comment on these proposed standards. After that, it's important that the state Board of Education and Gov. Charlie Crist fully endorse these changes to ensure Florida's children can compete in the increasingly technology-driven global marketplace.

The signs that Florida is behind are clear. Last school year, the state added science as a required subject on the FCAT. As predicted, the school grades based on the state's standardized test plummeted.

In 2005, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute gave Florida an F for the current standards and singled out the superficial treatment of evolution as an example. Now, Florida eighth-graders are expected to know that fossils are evidence that changes in the kinds of plants and animals supported by the environment have occurred over time. High-school students are expected to understand basic concepts in evolutionary theory, that genetic mutations and natural selection ensure that those who are best adapted to their surroundings survive to reproduce.

All that information was grouped under the label "Processes of Life."

The proposed standards, developed by a group of mostly teachers and professors, are called "Evolution and Diversity." Now seventh-graders will be expected to know that fossil evidence is consistent with the idea that humans evolved from earlier species.

Evolution is one of the "Big Ideas" that drive the curriculum changes, along with "Earth in Space and Time" and "Forces and Changes in Motion."

Let's add one more big idea. In Florida, science should win out over politics when it comes to educating children.

0 Replies

Quite a number of years ago, I helped a researcher gather up information on the early years of LSD experimentation, that period between Hoffman's discovery in '43 and the popularization and spread of the chemical in the sixties. It's a hell of an interesting story with a couple of significant Canadian connections including Vancouver's Hollywood Hospital, run by Al Hubbard and which was part of the CIA's MK Ultra project. But even earlier than that, Hoffman had written up his personal experiences experimenting with the chemical and those accounts were read by a few other scientists including two or three Canadians who themselves went on to ingest the stuff themselves and record their experiences (which later got to Leary and whatshisname at Berkely). The reason I mention this is that, as part of what our research turned up, we found a number of letters between those Canadian scientists and Aldous Huxley.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know