Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

I think Foxfyre's point is that just because some IDers are religious doesn't mean that all are.

There are IDers who are atheist, agnostic, etc

Not that that should make any difference to you, because you've conceded that it wasn't important to you to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural process'.

Since the time of Thomas Aquinas the definition of what is "natural" has included God. Why do you suddenly think that 500 years of Christian teachings should be wrong and God can not have anything to do with nature?

Where have I made any such statement?

Excluding the supernatural is not important to your definition of a 'natural process' , eh?

I would think it very important to you as a scientist to make sure that the definition of a natural process didn't include God.

If you introduce a supernatural element, it is no longer a natural process. Period.

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Most IDers aren't asking for ID to be science. however, and most do not believe it is. It is fine for the science teacher to tell the kids that ID is not science if the kids ask about it. It is not fine for the teacher to presume to tell the kids that there is no basis for ID.

Hokie, I think FoxFyre is objecting to anyone summarily rejecting ID as a possibility OUTSIDE of science.

I think she is agreeing that it is not scientific, but she wants teachers to acknowledge (or simply not reject) that "anything is possible" OUTSIDE of science.

What you think I think bears no resemblance to what I have said that I think. Try again a bit more objectively this time please.

Darn, I thought I had that right. I guess I don't know what the hell you're trying to say.

I'm sorry Ros. I did misunderstand your post. Knee jerk reflex after fielding so much incorrect analysis of my position I guess, but you didn't deserve the curt response. And yes you got it right, and I do appreciate that.

This however is curious in that FM so strenuously objects to any definition of ID having any credibility. How does one acccept God in the natural process and reject ID? This just doesn't compute.

Foxfyre wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Most IDers aren't asking for ID to be science. however, and most do not believe it is. It is fine for the science teacher to tell the kids that ID is not science if the kids ask about it. It is not fine for the teacher to presume to tell the kids that there is no basis for ID.

Hokie, I think FoxFyre is objecting to anyone summarily rejecting ID as a possibility OUTSIDE of science.

I think she is agreeing that it is not scientific, but she wants teachers to acknowledge (or simply not reject) that "anything is possible" OUTSIDE of science.

What you think I think bears no resemblance to what I have said that I think. Try again a bit more objectively this time please.

Darn, I thought I had that right. I guess I don't know what the hell you're trying to say.

I'm sorry Ros. I did misunderstand your post. Knee jerk reflex after fielding so much incorrect analysis of my position I guess, but you didn't deserve the curt response. And yes you got it right, and I do appreciate that.

Whew, for a minute there I thought I was going to have to rewrite my view of reality to incorporate your view (as I was having trouble making sense of it).

I can't say that I agree with your concerns regarding how teachers address issues like this (because, like farmerman, I think a vast majority of teachers don't undermine anyone's beliefs), but at least I now understand your position clearly.

I suppose the next discussion to flow from your view of this is whether it's necessary for teachers to caveat all instruction on evolution to include the disclaimer that all theories outside of science are possible.

But it is not the teacher's responsibility to mold the child's belief. It is the teacher's responsibility to competently give the child good information on a subject, motivate him/her to learn it and think critically about it, and allow the child to believe whatever s/he believes about it.

Quote:

But it is not the teacher's responsibility to mold the child's belief. It is the teacher's responsibility to competently give the child good information on a subject, motivate him/her to learn it and think critically about it, and allow the child to believe whatever s/he believes about it.

If that is all a teacher is supposed to do then I wonder how you test the child or evaluate the teacher.

Should we really let children decide if they believe how a word is supposed to be spelled or whether 2+2 really equals 4? To do that would create chaos in the school. We give them information that they can be tested on. Evolution is a theory. As a scientific theory it is supported by facts similar to every other scientific theory. We shouldn't teach beyond the facts but at the same time we shouldn't ignore facts simply because those facts go against someone's religion. That too would lead to chaos.

Does the teacher need to preface a teaching on Darwin by acknowledging ID? Of course not. But the teacher needs to know how to field the child's question without attacking or belittling or casting doubts on the child's religious faith should the subject come up. And I have offered my opinion as to the best way to do that to both protect the child and reassure the parents.

And with that policy, I think we would be seeing a lot less of this ID stuff in the papers.

Quote:

Does the teacher need to preface a teaching on Darwin by acknowledging ID? Of course not. But the teacher needs to know how to field the child's question without attacking or belittling or casting doubts on the child's religious faith should the subject come up. And I have offered my opinion as to the best way to do that to both protect the child and reassure the parents.

And with that policy, I think we would be seeing a lot less of this ID stuff in the papers.

Therein is the crux of the issue. The facts should really be simple.

Science doesn't support or deny the existence of God. Science only attempts to discover the rules of our natural surroundings.

I think the problem comes not from science but from those that think anyone that doesn't support God must be denying him. The attempt to insert ID is not an attempt to overcome the denial of God by science but rather the lack of God in science.

Science doesn't support or deny the existence of God.

Florida State School Board Should Reject Religious Right Effort to Weaken Science Standards, Says Americans United
(Americans United for Separation of Church and State Press Release, February 12, 2008)

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged the Florida State Board of Education to reject a Religious Right drive to weaken proposed new science standards.

The Board of Education is scheduled to vote Feb. 19 on "world-class" science standards that for the first time explicitly include evolution.

Religious Right activists and their allies are intently lobbying the board to water down the standards in keeping with fundamentalist Christian theology.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, "Public schools must teach science, not religion, in biology classes. It's up to parents, not government officials, to make decisions about religious training.

"School officials," he added, "have a high responsibility to resist all efforts to make the curriculum conform to the tenets of one faith tradition. Florida children deserve the best science education possible, not religious concepts disguised as science."

In a letter to School Board Chairman T. Willard Fair, Americans United said the Constitution requires a separation of church and state and that the courts have repeatedly forbidden teaching religion in science classes.

"The Board should not," Americans United said, "risk the sound scientific education of Florida's children or costly litigation that could result from adopting any standards that would include creationism or intelligent design…. Retreating from the proposed science standards to include religious ideas in science classes would ?'compromise the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education,' negatively affecting Florida's students."

Americans United warned that students' religious liberty rights are at stake.

"Any effort to introduce creationism in Florida's public school science curriculum," the AU letter insisted, "will harm the religious liberty rights of students and their families…. Parents, not schools, have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

"Our nation is becoming more and more religiously diverse and Florida's students and their families reflect this diversity. One specific religion's view of the origins of life should not be taught to the exclusion of others."

The Americans United letter was signed by AU State Legislative Counsel Dena S. Sher.

I agree that the vast majority of teachers do not indoctrinate children with their personal sociopolitical views;

During my years there I was proactive in stopping Christian fundamentalists from trying to have "objectionable" school library books banned and also proactive in censuring teachers who were improperly indoctrinating children. I've seen both sides first hand.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

I agree that the vast majority of teachers do not indoctrinate children with their personal sociopolitical views;

Pray tell dear Lady what exactly is the role of character references and questions in interviews for teaching positions relating to the applicant's character if there is not going to be any indoctrination of "personal sociopolitical views"?

A teacher indoctrinates as a matter of course.

Because you discuss things in the abstract you can only focus on some hypothetical statement made to a hypothetical class in a brief hypothetical moment.

A lot of kids have the same teacher day in day out for years in some cases.

One can easily have a history teacher for an hour a day, five days a week, 36 weeks a year through 14 to 17.

If he's any good he bends their minds. Without anybody noticing. A real educator doesn't want to be noticed. He wants the kids in his charge to benefit from his lessons. There are a large number of teachers in the US and all we ever get on here is what the ones who want to be noticed think and they might only be thinking what they say they think in order to be noticed. And I daresay the number of them is less than 1%.

But I recognise that in the US everybody seems to want to be noticed.

So this thread is in the indoctrination game. And nobody will ever indoctrinate me unless they have the style. And it can't be faked. That's why I don't buy your two big sports.

Quote:

During my years there I was proactive in stopping Christian fundamentalists from trying to have "objectionable" school library books banned and also proactive in censuring teachers who were improperly indoctrinating children. I've seen both sides first hand.

Where would you be Foxy with de Sade, Genet, Joyce, Henry Miller, Burroughs, Selby Jnr, Durell,(He wrote TUNC), Rabelais, & Co. As soon as you decide what is "objectionable" you are engaged in indoctrination. Bang at it. So basically you are defining "indoctrination" in a way which represents your "personal sociopolitical views".

You do see that don't you?

Are you a bit nervous about addressing my points? It is a science forum where one expects everything to be looked at with a cold, dispassionate, objective eye and what is observed to be reported accurately.

I wouldn't want Bob Dylan to be sneering "Ya can't look at much can you man? at me.

So my appeal here is to the reasonable people

The only thing that makes me nervous, Spendi, is that I actually am understanding most of your points. And that's scary

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

The only thing that makes me nervous, Spendi, is that I actually am understanding most of your points. And that's scary

Yes- a lot of people have problems when they have become habituated to taking themselves seriously and then along comes someone who shows them the sheer bloody silly sod that they actually are as a product of evolution.

It happened to me. Thankfully I wasn't very old at the time.

Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Bach are pure essence of Christian theology on the wing. Mainlining.

Without indoctrination we would all be feral.

Science doesn't support or deny the existence of God

Science doesn't. Some scientists and/or science teachers do.

Watch Out for those Terrible Atheists
by Lee Salisbury / February 12th, 2008

A recent study conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the last person for whom Americans would vote in a presidential election. "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians" all ranked higher than atheists in public acceptability. Furthermore, Americans are "least willing to allow their children to marry" atheists.

State laws instill and perpetuate this attitude. Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Tennessee constitution states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas have similar laws.

George H. W. Bush while campaigning for President in 1987 exhibited this same attitude, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Apparently all theists good and all atheists bad. If this is the case, atheist and agnostic businesspersons like Microsoft's Bill Gates, investment guru Warren Buffet, Apple's Steve Jobs and CNN founder Ted Turner should all be exiled for their unbelief. Don't forget to include the 93% of National Academy of Science members who lack belief in a personal deity. What about atheist Pat Tillman, Arizona Cardinal football star, who left a $3,600,000 salary to enlist in the U.S. Army and subsequently got killed in Afghanistan? The oft-repeated theist claim, "there are no atheists in foxholes" insults a true American hero.

Is there a rationale for this prejudice against atheists or is this just plain theist bigotry? Why are atheists more "despised and distrusted" than any other minority? Why do theists promote this malicious slander? Has it ever occurred to theists to judge themselves by the same standards they judge others? Didn't Jesus say something about taking the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of another's eye?

How about the theist record? Theist Roman emperor Constantine had 3,000 Christians plus a wife and son murdered. Roman Catholic theists instigated the murderous Crusades and the Inquisitions. Theist Charlemagne had 4,500 Saxons beheaded all in one morning. Protestant theists arbitrarily tortured and burned at the stake tens of thousands of women because of the Bible's admonition against witches. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli advocated death for heretics. Christian theists have persecuted Jews for the past eighteen centuries-most notably by the Roman Catholic theist Adolph Hitler who murdered 6,000,000 Jews.

Naively, many Americans assume theists never act immorally nor lie for fear of their God's anger. Yet a recent study by The Center for Public Integrity finds that President George Bush and his top administration officials (all theists) issued 935 false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attack. The study concludes these false statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." That's 935 good reasons to question god-fearing theist morality.

The January/February 2008 Psychology Today magazine contains an article, "An Atheist in the Pulpit, what happens when religious leaders lose their faith." The author interviewed Lutheran, Pentecostal, Catholic and Episcopalian clergymen and recorded theism's cognitive dissonance in their own words. "We tend to ignore how much cognitive effort is required to maintain extreme religious beliefs, which have no supporting evidence whatsoever." "The disjunction between what clergymen say publicly and what they believe privately is so common that serious cognitive dissonance comes with the territory." "We spend our lives impersonating who we think others want us to be and end up living as impostors. So when someone comes to me and tells me they are losing their faith, I congratulate them. You're starting to embrace your own thinking self - the essential, immutable, immortal self - as opposed to the accidental criminal you have been made to think you are." Integrity and cognitive health are theism's real sacrifice.

So why this centuries-old acrimony against atheists? Granted some atheists have committed atrocities too. Communists Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung are two heinous examples. Does such justify the entirely one-sided bigotry and prejudice commonly accepted among Americans? America, the land of intellectual freedom, has granted hard-core theists free reign to preach their bigotry against Jews, Blacks, women and homosexuals. However, the deep-seated prejudice against atheists merits special attention because atheism challenges theism's very existence.

A question seldom asked is what does the prejudice against atheists tell us about those who hold that prejudice? Are theists fearful that their god may not really be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? Does the cognitive dissonance experienced when trying to explain their god's indifference to events like 9/11, Katrina, and the 2004 Christmas Tsunami trouble their psyche? Maybe their religious fire insurance has been shaken. When theists must struggle with the ineptitude of their god, who better to lash out at than atheists?

Has religious tolerance for prejudice and bigotry toward atheists so intimidated Americans that they do not even recognize it? Evidently yes, especially when one might be branded one of those terrible atheists. Nevertheless, an intellectually free America, as intended by our founders, remerges as more and more atheist/agnostic freethinkers come out of the closet and stand against theism's last bigoted prejudicial stronghold of intolerance. As one astute college student said to me, "a man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle"?- who needs it?

The academics found that men and women who confessed to drinking most days had the highest childhood mental ability scores, whereas those who reported that they never had alcohol had the lowest mental ability scores.

SPendi has, Im afraid, a jaded view of all existence and I dont feel that its our job to dissuade him because hes quite ossified.

We were also exposed to writings of Marx, Hitler, and Hemingway along with the standard Silas Marner, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Shakespeare, Whitman, Chaucer et al. Guest lecturers at the university included everything from hard core communists to pop pysche advocates to supply sided economists. Now when students are too often being indoctrinated, they are often not offered or even allowed such diversity of experience