Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

blatham wrote:

I'd like to suggest that there is another element back of this push for ID to be taught in public schools that we possibly don't talk about enough.

Though there's a rich and consistent history of "education in America is in crisis!" rhetoric going back to the early 1800s, the modern conservative movement has set itself to the task of 'reforming' public education with a particular vigor and focus.

In this discussion here, we've been mainly talking about the attempts by the religious wing of the movement (mainly reactionary evangelicals) to undo what they perceive as damage done to their literalist worldview from the logical or intellectual consequences of much scientific investigation, particularly the work of Darwin.

But the movement's assault on education has been far broader than that. Merely removing (even if they could) any mention of evolutionary theory from school curricula would not satisfy the movement's goals because the movement has other interested parties, often not religious at all, which have aligned themselves with the religious wing in order to accomplish separate goals. Horowitz's operation is the most obvious example. As well, the push for home schooling and for charter schools commonly comes out of movement groups who aren't necessarily religiously oriented.

There are three readily identifiable goals in what we see above. The more obvious one is the desire to turn back what this movement refers to as "liberalism".

A somewhat less obvious goal is to further expand the profit opportunities for private or corporate investment through moving education out of government and into the hands of those financial interests.

And there's a third goal as well, perhaps least obvious of all, and that is a strategic move to defund and de-organize the left through disempowering the teachers' unions. This has been an effective strategy of the modern conservative movement people and we see it at work elsewhere as in the 'faith-based inititatives' project where multi-millions in funding has moved away from government employees (and their union organizations' power) and into the hands of conservative organizations.

It's prudent, I think, to keep this broader stuff in mind.

Interesting argument, however, I believe it involves a significant over simplification of much more complex issues.

While Blatham's notions above may well be true with respect to the aspirations of some Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists, I don't think they are an accurate description of the motives and intent of the majority of those who favor some acknowledgement of ID in education and those who lack confidence in the existing public educational establishment, including teacher's unions. It suits him to portray all who are concerned about such issues as part of an organized, monolithic "movement" that embodies all the unsavory features of nutty Evangelicism, but that simply is not the case.

Just as there are excellent reasons for the wish to restrain secular zealots from construing science education to require an implicit or explicit denial of the possibility of ID (a notion that is not even defensible in scientific terms), there is ample reason for the accelerating decline of the public's confidence in public education and the ability of the education establishment to reform itself with any level of funding. None of these reasons require one to be a fundamentalist of any stripe.

It is simply convenient for those with no arguments with which to defend the failures and excesses of the existing institutions, to falsely characterize their critics as loonie "movement" types. I have no sympathy at all for the cant and excesses of political Evangelicism, and I have very little for the self-serving bureaucracies, secular theorists, and corrupt unions that have so corrupted our public education system.

It is interesting to observe the gathering resurgence of parochial education here in California. I have two grandchildren just starting kindergarten at the local Catholic school -- it turns out there were twenty applicants for every available seat - mostly from secular parents, desperate to escape the mindless chaos of the public schools.

What do you think of the recent California ruling requiring that only credentialed teachers can do home schooling? This despite the incredible success rate demonstrated by home schooled kids.

I think it has been the covert but effectively intentional efforts to install Atheism as the authorized school religion in the public schools that is driving some of these idiotic issues in the states. And I think that is exacerbated by the unwillingness to compromise on anything in order to achieve unity of purpose and get on with educating the kids.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think it has been the covert but effectively intentional efforts to install Atheism as the authorized school religion in the public schools that is driving some of these idiotic issues in the states. And I think that is exacerbated by the unwillingness to compromise on anything in order to achieve unity of purpose and get on with educating the kids.

I don't think it is as aggressively conspiratorial as that. Instead I believe it merely illustrates the preference of an education establishment that values its primacy above all else for publically-mandated (and thus controlled by them) saccarine and vanilla, instead of freedom and choice.

Just as extreme, however, are those who object to a science teacher even acknowledging that a substantial percentage of the population does believe in some form of ID. For the life of me, I cannot see how intentionally not discreditng a child's religious faith in any way interferes with teaching solid science to kids.

It becomes an issue when a child brings it up.
The anti-IDers on the thread don't want the teacher to have the option, much less the instruction, to acknowledge to the child that many believe in some form of ID but it falls outside the scope of science, therefore ID won't be on the test. Darwin will.

Any child that advanced should simply be trucked off to Jerry Falwell's university.

The anti-IDers don't want the teacher to have the freedom to encourage children to think outside the box, to see the unanswered questions in Darwin as well as the tested science.

Forgive me, but I'd like to see some measure of proof for this before I comment. Religions are not all that big on having the congregation thinking outside the box.

I do not want ID to be taught in science class or in any other class in public school except perhaps objectively in a comparative religions class.

"objectively", "objectively"; has religion, at the level below adulthood, ie. to school age children and teenagers, ever been taught objectively? How can you teach dogma objectively?

I also don't want a science teacher to teach students that science can in any way dismiss or discredit ID because it can't.

You want what you want because you believe what you believe, but you don't want others to teach what you don't want because you don't believe it. Have I got this straight?

What Science is NOT

1. Science is not a process which can solve all kinds of problems and questions.
The realm of science is limited strictly to solving problems about the natural world. Science is not properly equipped to handle the supernatural realm (as such), nor the realm of values and ethics.

2. It's not a process which can ignore rules.
Science must follow certain rules; otherwise, it's not science (just as soccer is not soccer if its rules are not followed).

3. It's not a process which seeks the truth or facts.
The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It's never "truth" or "facts". "Truth" and "facts" can mean different things to different people.

4. It's not a process which attempts to prove things.
The process of science, when properly applied, actually attempts to disprove ideas (tentative explanations)... a process called "testing", or "challenging". If the idea survives testing, then it is stronger, and more likely an accurate explanation.

5. It's not a process which can produce any kind of explanation.
Scientific explanations must be potentially disprovable. Therefore, supernatural explanations cannot be used, since they can never be disproved (supernatural forces, by definition, do not predictably follow the laws of nature). Whatever results occur in any test can be attributed to those nebulous forces, effectively ending any further efforts to explain.

6. It's not a process which produces certainties, or absolute facts.
Science is a process which can only produce "possible" to "highly probable" explanations for natural phenomena; these are never certainties. With new information, tools, or approaches, earlier findings (theories, or even facts) can be replaced by new findings.

7. It's not a process which can always be relied upon due to its total objectivity and internal self-correction.
Science can be done poorly, just like any other human endeavor. We are all fallible, some of us make fewer mistakes than others, some observe better than others, but we are still subjective in the end. Internal self-correction mechanisms in science merely increase the reliability of its product.

8. It's not a process which is always properly used.
Unfortunately, science is all too frequently misused. Because it works so well, there are those who apply the name of science to their efforts to "prove" their favorite cause, even if the rules of science were not followed. Such causes are properly labeled "pseudosciences". Also, some scientists have been known to do fraudulent work, in order to support their pet ideas. Such work is usually exposed sooner or later, due to the peer review system, and the work of other scientists.

9. It's not a process which is free from values, opinions or bias.
Scientists are people, and although they follow certain rules and try to be as objective as possible, both in their observations and their interpretations, their biases are still there. Unconscious racial bias, gender bias, social status, source of funding, or political leanings can and do influence one's perceptions and interpretations.

10. It's not a process in which the product (understanding) is based on faith or belief.
The product of science (probable explanations for natural phenomena) are always based on observations carefully analyzed and tested. The high confidence we have in science comes from the many successful applications to real-life problems (e.g. in medicine, space exploration, chemistry and technology).

11. It's not a process in which one solution is as good as another, or is simply a matter of opinion.
In science, there is a rigorous analysis and fair-test comparison of alternative explanations, using discriminate criteria, e.g., confirmation by multiple independent lines of evidence, leading to one "best" solution.

12. Scientific Theories are not "tentative ideas" or "hunches".
The word "theory" is often used this way in everyday conversation, but a theory in science refers to a highly probable, well-tested comprehensive explanation, usually for a large collection of observations.

Left to make their own choices, few children would pick the religion of their parents.

Quote:

JTT wrote- Left to make their own choices, few children would pick the religion of their parents.

What would children do then if left to make their own choices?

I do not want ID to be taught in science class or in any other class in public school except perhaps objectively in a comparative religions class.

Religion does not belong in any science class; it belongs in Philosophy or Religion class.

It's hard to know for sure, Spendius. Some would choose other religions, some would avoid religion altogether and some might start an ID movement, for political reasons to sucker in the "true believers".

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Religion does not belong in any science class; it belongs in Philosophy or Religion class.

That was dealt with a long time ago c.i.

Yes it was, but sometimes shite needs to be repeated.

As you never mounted an argument on the matter I assumed you accepted what I said about such foolish notions which obviously derive from a mindset that thinks it is moving counters around a board and has no need to worry its little head about practical matters.

Who might be teaching this hypothetical religion class you have in mind.

Many churches do, and sometimes parents lead their children.

You do know don't you that science says that you can only see what is in your own mind and not the thing you are looking at. Your version of it.

We all interpret our world in unique ways, but some things are common to all (or at least most) humans.

That's the sort of thing that belongs in Philosophy classes. Not religion classes.

I hope you don't think that by mentioning Philosophy classes we will think you are up to speed on Philosophy.

Philosophy was my minor in college, but I'm no expert by any means.

BTW c.i. In the pic from Hawaii who was the lady leaning on the pillar at the back when you were all caught waiting for something to happen? I forget what.

You'll have to be more specific about the picture such as page number and description of the scene.

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Religion does not belong in any science class; it belongs in Philosophy or Religion class.

That was dealt with a long time ago c.i.

Yes it was, but sometimes shite needs to be repeated.

As you never mounted an argument on the matter I assumed you accepted what I said about such foolish notions which obviously derive from a mindset that thinks it is moving counters around a board and has no need to worry its little head about practical matters.

Who might be teaching this hypothetical religion class you have in mind.

Many churches do, and sometimes parents lead their children.

You do know don't you that science says that you can only see what is in your own mind and not the thing you are looking at. Your version of it.

We all interpret our world in unique ways, but some things are common to all (or at least most) humans.

That's the sort of thing that belongs in Philosophy classes. Not religion classes.

I hope you don't think that by mentioning Philosophy classes we will think you are up to speed on Philosophy.

Philosophy was my minor in college, but I'm no expert by any means.

BTW c.i. In the pic from Hawaii who was the lady leaning on the pillar at the back when you were all caught waiting for something to happen? I forget what.

You'll have to be more specific about the picture such as page number and description of the scene.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

I do not want ID to be taught in science class or in any other class in public school except perhaps objectively in a comparative religions class.

Have you not got the picture yet Foxy. You are starting to sound like c.i. trotting out these boring mantras.

There is no way to stop ID being taught. It in the language, the dress, the food, the etiquette, the telly, the schools, the editorial suites of AIDs-ers newspapers, the stripper' basques, the wedding dresses, the baptisms, the funerals and the meat and potato pie-shops.

It's under threat. Maybe the stripper's basques will survive.

Can you not understand a simple thing like that yet after all this time and my efforts to educate you?

And besides that nobody given two bubblegum pops what you want.

And there is no such thing as an objective comparative religion class. I don't mean that we have overlooked the possibility of such a thing but that it is a very great deal more impossible than any of us winning the lottery.

Your emollience seems to be the subject of your post.