Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Source

The Article wrote:

Polls for many years have shown that a majority of Americans are at odds with key scientific theory. For example, as CBS poll this month found that 51 percent of respondents believed humans were created in their present form by God. A further 30 percent said their creation was guided by God. Only 15 percent thought humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.

"When we ask people what they know about science, just under 20 percent turn out to be scientifically literate," said Jon Miller, director of the center for biomedical communication at Northwestern University.

There's a tight correspondence between scientific literacy and the realization of evolution.

Just as we see on these threads, those who reject evolution also can't demonstrate an understanding of it. As evidenced by this little gem:

real life wrote:

If a new species 'evolved' from a existing species, then at some early point do you not begin with just two of the new species?

Do we have any creationists on these threads who actually understand evolution? We see lots of people who can parrot pre-written content from creationist web sites, but nobody who can discuss the theory in detail.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

There's a tight correspondence between scientific literacy and the realization of evolution.

No there isn't.Nowhere near.What you might have better said is that there is a tight correspondence between between a posture of scientific literacy and a public demonstration of support for evolution much like a perceived correspondence between wearing a smart suit and white shirt and tie with a persona of respectability.The scientifically literate are probably no more than 0.1% and those understanding evolution less than that and claims to the contrary are mere air and more to do with esteem than anything else.
I have made this point more than once on here and ros does not seem to have read my posts which bodes ill for his engagement with the rest of it.
The Dover case is being conducted on both sides by organisms all of whom are engaged in the "struggle for existence".The nutrient in this case being cheques which are converted into larger cars (coloured wings) which are likely to attract females for mating etc etc.

I think that the " little gem" from real life is evidence of what real life wrote at one particular time under conditions x,y and z to name a few.To think that the "little gem" demonstrates anything other than that is spectacularly unscientific.

At what point do you cease to say that each new birth is not a new species.Oh-I know-when to say that it is,which it is,throws your categories and labelling systems into to disarray and your ability to stereotype and wave your sweeping arm across the field of creation as if you understand it is lost.This is a species of control freakery.

Quote:

"When we ask people what they know about science, just under 20 percent turn out to be scientifically literate," said Jon Miller, director of the center for biomedical communication at Northwestern University.

After that one can only shake one's head in disbelief.What were they asked?And do the answers prove that they were,or were not,scientifically literate?What we seem to have here is a belief that somebody with the title Miller has is infallible.Miller's statement is actually incoherent from even a fragile scientific view.And I don't think it is anything other than neat B/S.("neat" as in neat whisky-undiluted.)

Quote:

Do we have any creationists on these threads who actually understand evolution? We see lots of people who can parrot pre-written content from creationist web sites, but nobody who can discuss the theory in detail.

Since I began taking an interest in this thread I would say,from memory,that ALL the "pre-written content" is from the so called SD side.
And,as I have said before,I have read Origin.In fact it is here in my hand.I have also read two Biogs of Darwin both of which are upstairs.And plenty more besides.And none of it "sings" in the manner Mahler's Song of the Earth sings or even like a negro spiritual.There isn't a shred of poetic sensibility in any of it.If you wish to discuss the theory of evolution in detail I suggest you go read Origin for a start and,for balance,Isis Unveiled.The very last thing a scientist has is a closed mind.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Boy fella you can be dense as Uranium some time.

Thanks fm.Pretty hot stuff eh Uranium.Am I 238.That glows in the dark.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

ros wrote-

Quote:
There's a tight correspondence between scientific literacy and the realization of evolution.

No there isn't. Nowhere near. What you might have better said is that there is a tight correspondence between between a posture of scientific literacy and a public demonstration of support for evolution much like a perceived correspondence between wearing a smart suit and white shirt and tie with a persona of respectability.

There you go again, stating things without any backing and transferring your insecurities onto the public. But that's your opinion. I just happen to think it's bull crap.

spendius wrote:

The scientifically literate are probably no more than 0.1% and those understanding evolution less than that and claims to the contrary are mere air and more to do with esteem than anything else.
I have made this point more than once on here and ros does not seem to have read my posts which bodes ill for his engagement with the rest of it.

Don't worry Spendi, I've read your posts, and they are certainly creative, but half the time I'm not sure you're even sober, and other times I see a hefty dose of self serving "I'm a scientist and the rest of you are just pretenders" crap thrown in to salve whatever egotistical wound you've been licking over the years.

0 Replies

ros, hmm I never before noticed that . I did accuse spendi of hitting the Whatneys Red Barrel too much but now that you mention it, He does seem to have a hard-on against scientists.

0 Replies

No I don't.I like scientists.Top of the list for me.Not find a bunch of more dedicated men anywhere.And useful too.When I think of how useful they have been I almost weep with joy.Sticking needles into their eyes some of them.Up all night in freezing conditions watching the heavens.Frank Whittle in a rusty tin shed with pipes and oil drums and skint.
Couldn't get a grant you see.Everybody thought he was mad.And did he care?I've seen film of Logie Baird in the early stages of this fantastic machine we all now have.Everybody thought he was mad too.They were probably right.The mad scientist is a well known figure of fun.I defy anybody to watch Patrick Moore after five pints and not at least titter.

Technologists are another thing entirely.They get grants and investment and stuff.That's why they play at golf and keep their front lawn nicely shaved and have all the other apperturances of a well regulated life.

Scientist are shamen.They don't do any of that stuff.

I'm not having it standing on these threads without correction that I have anything at all against scientists and least of all a hard-on.I save those for the polar opposite of scientists.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

ros, hmm I never before noticed that . I did accuse spendi of hitting the Whatneys Red Barrel too much but now that you mention it, He does seem to have a hard-on against scientists.

I think you misunderstand FM. Spendi loves scientists, he claims to be one. What he doesn't like is people who pretend to have scientific knowledge and cling to the mantle of science just to boost their own perception as educated people.

And while I don't doubt that there are many in the world who fit that mold, I don't believe it's a valid counterpoint to any of this ridiculous creationism and ID stuff which is going on.

But we can let Spendi speak for himself on this.

0 Replies

ros-

The proper way to say what you said is to insert between "mold" and "I","present company excepted of course".Comma after "mold" and another one after "course".

Don't you think that is much pleasanter?

0 Replies

BBB
I'm going to a class tomorrow at which the man, who is on the school board that has ordered that intelligent design be taught in science classes, will also be present. I described my encounter with him when he announced what he had done in an earlier post of this thread.

I've not decided how to relate to him during these classes since we have to interact. I don't want to disrupt the class and I want to behave smarter than him. Secretly, I'd like to treat him as the idiot he is, but---I guess I will just grin and bear him. Any suggestions?

BBB

0 Replies

Computer problems.I will be back after the weekend.

0 Replies

Kansas Fight on Evolution Escalates
October 28, 2005
Kansas Fight on Evolution Escalates
By JODI WILGOREN

Two leading science organizations have denied the Kansas Board of Education permission to use their copyrighted materials as part of the state's proposed new science standards because of the standards' critical approach to evolution.

The rebuke from the two groups, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association, comes less than two weeks before the board's expected adoption of the controversial new standards, which will serve as a template for statewide tests and thus have great influence on what is taught.

Kansas is one of a number of states and school districts where the teaching of evolution has lately come under assault. If adopted, its change in standards will be among the most aggressive challenges in the nation to biology's bedrock theory.

The copyright denial could delay adoption as the standards are rewritten but is unlikely to derail the board's conservative majority in its mission to require that challenges to Darwin's theories be taught in the state's classrooms.

In a joint statement yesterday, Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy, and Michael J. Padilla, president of the teachers' group, said: "Kansas students will not be well prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world."

In the statement and in letters to the state board, the groups opposed the standards because they would single out evolution as a controversial theory and change the definition of science itself so that it is not restricted to the study of natural phenomena. A third organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, echoed those concerns in a news release supporting the copyright denial, saying, "Students are ill served by any effort in science classrooms to blur the distinction between science and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural."

Though the complaints of the National Academy and the teachers' group focus on just a handful of references to evolution, their copyrighted material appears on almost all 100 pages of the standards, which are an overview of science subjects taught in kindergarten through high school. In Kansas, as in most states, local school districts decide on curriculums and choose textbooks, but the state standards guide those decisions.

"In some cases it's just a phrase, but in some cases it's extensive," Steve Case, the chairman of the board's standards-writing committee, said of the differences required by the copyright denial. "You try to keep the idea but change the wording around; the writing becomes horrifically bad."

Dr. Case, a research professor at the University of Kansas who opposes the proposed standards, said removing the copyrighted material could take several months. But Steve Abrams, the board's president and leader of its 6-to-4 conservative majority, said it could approve the standards on Nov. 8 as planned, with a caveat directing a copyright lawyer to edit out direct references to the groups' materials.

"The impact is minimal - it won't change the concepts," said Dr. Abrams, a veterinarian. "They obviously don't have copyrights on concepts."

The copyright skirmish is not a surprise: the two science groups took similar steps in 1999, when the Kansas board stripped the standards of virtually any reference to evolution, a move that was reversed when conservative members were ousted from office. (Critics of evolutionary theory regained a majority last year.)

Sue Gamble, a board member who opposes the changes, acknowledged that the science groups' dissent would do little to halt the standards' adoption but said it could lead to a backlash.

"Nothing is going to stop these six members from doing what they're going to do," she said of the board's conservative majority, four of whom are up for re-election in 2006. "It won't make any difference, but I think it will make a difference next year in the election."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Computer problems.I will be back after the weekend.

http://www.gartenbaukino.at/images/inhalt/schule/wallace_gromit.jpg

0 Replies

BBB, ask him if he realizes that the core of ID is in violation of the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard USSC decision? And why does he insist that the school turn its clock back 100 years ? I hope somebody other than Russ Humphries from Sandia is there as a scientist.
Roger Wiens is a Christian and a geologist/Physicist who has defended the aspects of science that the CReationists have tried to muddy up. He works at Los Alamos

0 Replies

BBB,in an interesting post,had this-

Quote:

In a joint statement yesterday, Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy, and Michael J. Padilla, president of the teachers' group, said: "Kansas students will not be well prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world."

.

That is an assertion which depends upon a certain view of what "competitive disadvantage" means.It also depends on the idea that what ALL students get from school is fixed for life which is a bit ridiculous in view of the education Charles Darwin received.

We are back with the same problem and it will proclude any progress in this discussion if threaders simply refuse to accept it.It is that the bulk of the students have IQs in the 90-110 range and are heading into ordinary mundane jobs and social milieux.Such students may well be better off in terms of general happiness and mental stabilty with a non-scientific education,or,at the least,one which avoids the rigours of real science.Those students with high IQs will come to terms with any non-scientific indoctrination on reaching maturity and perhaps even before.

Of course this is elitist but school authorities are elitist and derive their power from an electorate.Attacks on a school board which has an elected majority for one side of the argument are fundamentally anti-democracy and suggest a drift into totalitarianism.

It was suggested recently by fm that I knew nothing about the constitution.Being slightly stung by this remark I have spent the weekend reading about it.When Tocqueville wrote (1831) there were 15 million Americans largely influenced by English manners and methods.In 1787 it was presumably less than that.When Bryce wrote there were 60 millions (1888).In Beloff's day (1959) there were 160m and now,I believe,the figure is approaching 300m.He refers to the document as "laconic".
Bearing in mind conditions in 1787;no electricity,no mechanical transportation,very slow communications,no defence or foreign relations policies of significance etc etc and contrasting them to today and also bearing in mind the role of the constitution as an arbiter between states and federal government it seems bootless to have recourse to pedantic interpretations of that document in this dispute.Ridiculous even.
It seems to me that SDers are in favour of consolidating federal power and IDers are in favour of states' rights or even district's rights.One would of course expect that of a scientific diaspora
seeking to create an Alphaville within which only scientific ideas,such as scientists know best,have validity.Were that to come to pass the scientific elite would become the ruling class.
Any even half-baked scientist (an adjective-not a title) who has studied the human race with a cool dispassionate eye knows that that is the road to ruin and is the very last thing the makers of the consitution had in mind.Separation of powers is not an abstract concept and no constitution maker in 1787 would have ever thought that a scientific argument would over-ride a democratic decision taken by democratically elected representitives.

0 Replies

A question for a consitutional expert.

I noticed at the last election that the "red" states had an enclosed boundary within which there were no blue patches.

Has that happened before in modern times?

0 Replies

spendius,
I am not sure whether the constitution would help with that. That "red state/blue state" scheme was invented by the news media to show which states voted Republican and which states voted Democratic.

0 Replies

Spendius

wandeljw wrote:

spendius,
I am not sure whether the constitution would help with that. That "red state/blue state" scheme was invented by the news media to show which states voted Republican and which states voted Democratic.

The only reason the red and blue states show up so vividly is because of the dreadful "winner take all" electoral votes rules in elections. That there are total red and blue states is a myth. There may be majorities, but not totally red or blue.

BBB

0 Replies

Yes.I know that.That wasn't the question I'm afraid.It happens here to a certain extent.The red land was within a boundary.The question was-has that happened before?

Winner takes all here too and alternatives are truly "dreadful".

Are you guys dissidents?

0 Replies

Quote:

Final Week of Intelligent Design Trial
HARRISBURG, PA-October 31, 2005 - A landmark federal trial over whether "intelligent design" can be mentioned in high school biology classes entered its final week Monday with two school board members who supported the concept scheduled to testify for the defense.
The Dover Area School Board is defending its decision in October 2004 to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution.
The board's lawyers planned to call Jane Cleaver, who resigned from the board to move out of state after the vote, and current board member Alan Bonsell to testify about the board's discussions of the teaching of evolution leading up to the biology curriculum change.
Eight families are suing to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum. They argue that the school board's policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation, and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The intelligent-design statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.
Intelligent design supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.
The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to conclude on Friday.
The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.
(Copyright 2005 by the Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

0 Replies

Quote:

The intelligent-design statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps,"

Darwin himself explained these "gaps" as being due to "imperfections in the geological record".

He thus admits the gaps (intermediate species or varieties) and his explanation of them is not very satisfactory I should have thought.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know