Reply
Sat 3 Dec, 2005 08:46 pm
Academics consider "intelligent design" museum talk
Fri Dec 2, 2005 9:40 AM ET
By Christopher Michaud
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A panel of academics took a cool look at the increasingly heated issue of evolution versus "intelligent design" on Thursday, variously holding up the latter as a cultural battle, a global phenomenon or even a brilliant marketing scheme.
The "Darwin's Legacy" discussion, convened in conjunction with the American Museum of Natural History's exhibit on the naturalist who developed the theory of evolution, came as legal battles played out over the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design" in U.S. schools.
Intelligent design holds that some aspects of nature are so complex they must be the work of an unnamed designer or higher power, as opposed to the result of random natural selection as argued by Darwin.
Policies that would promote teaching alternatives to evolution are being considered in at least 30 states, and the Kansas Board of Education earlier this month approved new public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
In Dover, Pennsylvania, a local school board was ousted over its requiring that intelligent design be taught in classrooms, and a group of parents has sued saying that violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
In a broad-ranging discussion, the panelists agreed as often as they differed, with several noting that the debate over evolution and intelligent design was rife with paradox.
James Moore of Britain's Open University noted religion was not taught in U.S. schools, yet this was a "very religious nation." In contrast, fewer than 5 percent of adults attend church services in Britain, a Christian country where religious education is mandatory and there is no separation of church and state.
SCIENCE, RELIGION CONFLICT
Florida State University Michael Ruse, author of "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," echoed that, calling America "a peculiarly religious country" which was also a "science powerhouse. How can it be such?" he asked.
Ruse suggested the answer lay partly in history, not least being the Civil War after which Southerners turned to the Bible, and evolution "was taken to represent everything about the North that they disliked."
The result, he said, was the "red state-blue state clash -- It's not science versus religion as such -- but very much a cultural clash that we've got in America today." Others concurred, saying that the schism was part and parcel of a broader cultural war over contentious issues like abortion, gay rights and gun control.
But the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Ronald Numbers viewed the phenomenon as a growing global issue, saying intelligent design had made significant inroads in Australia, throughout Latin America, in Korea and most surprisingly, Russian and even China, which remains a communist state.
"And it's not just a Christian phenomenon," he added, citing a Turkish education minister who pushed for intelligent design in schools, as well as inroads made within both Judaism and Islam.
Numbers said that at heart, the proponents of intelligent design "want to change the definition of science" to include God, an issue he predicted would end up in the Supreme Court.
"One of the most successful PR campaigns we've seen in recent years," he added, "is intelligent design."
Finally Edward Larson, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his 1998 book on the Scopes monkey trials, held that the debate boiled down in the United States to what is being taught in high school biology classes.
In the only remark to draw applause from the large audience, Larson said the "problem is partisan officials trying to tell science teachers how to do their jobs," and for "blatantly religious motivations." He also noted that "so far, the issue hasn't affect scientific funding."
President George W. Bush, a vocal Christian, has stated he believes that intelligent design should be taught in classrooms alongside evolution, as has British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Opponents say it is thinly veiled version of creationism, the Bible version of human origins, which the Supreme Court barred from the classroom decades ago.
Re: Academics consider "intelligent design" museum
husker wrote:
President George W. Bush, a vocal Christian, has stated he believes that intelligent design should be taught in classrooms alongside evolution,as has British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
(emphasis mine)
Do you mean that it is not only 'right wing Christian fundamentalist no brain fanatics' that favor freedom of inquiry, but also left wing Tony Blair as well?
How come we haven't heard equal opportunity bashing of liberal Tony?
Perhaps it is as many have maintained all along -- that the current anti ID/creationism hubbub has more to do with providing a convenient vent for anti-Christian and/or political considerations than it does for any real concern for science or quest for truth.
I don't know what this thread is supposed to be... from the first interaction it seems to be a Christians attacking modern science claiming that science is anti-christian thread (like we need one of those)... I will wait to see what it turns into.
For the record, Tony Blair is an evangelical Christian. He is also attacked quite often by progressives who compare him to "Bush's lap dog".
Quote:James Moore of Britain's Open University noted religion was not taught in U.S. schools, yet this was a "very religious nation." In contrast, fewer than 5 percent of adults attend church services in Britain, a Christian country where religious education is mandatory and there is no separation of church and state.
this caught my eye
ep in general I thought it was an interesting article - I'm not attacking anything
Yeah you are right. That is interesting.
For the record I am defending religious education in another thread with the idea that more religious education will mean less fundamentalism.
In my opinion this would be a good thing.
Creation is in the Bible so it should be taught in Bible class along with Flat Earth.
Quote:But the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Ronald Numbers viewed the phenomenon as a growing global issue, saying intelligent design had made significant inroads in Australia
Has NOT!! There has been THE SALE of a number of the 'anti-evolutionist' DVD -
Unlocking the Mysteries of Life - not quite the same thing, no?
Rational heads have prevailed....
Quote:"To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions."
Re: Academics consider "intelligent design" museum
real life wrote:husker wrote:
President George W. Bush, a vocal Christian, has stated he believes that intelligent design should be taught in classrooms alongside evolution,as has British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
(emphasis mine)
Do you mean that it is not only 'right wing Christian fundamentalist no brain fanatics' that favor freedom of inquiry, but also left wing Tony Blair as well?
How come we haven't heard equal opportunity bashing of liberal Tony?
Perhaps it is as many have maintained all along -- that the current anti ID/creationism hubbub has more to do with providing a convenient vent for anti-Christian and/or political considerations than it does for any real concern for science or quest for truth.
Tony Blair's
liberal? One should avoid assuming one's political orientation coincides with that of his party. Blair has done to the Labour Party what has already happened to the Democratic Party--moved it far enough to the right as to make it nearly indistinguishable from its conservative counterpart. Besides, most of the folks here seem to be U.S. citizens--what Blair does to education in the U.K. is their problem.
The 'hubbub' over ID/Creationism being taught in science classes results from a profound desire that our young people not be taught to confuse mythology for science. There's no mysterious motive; it's really that simply.
Mr Stillwater wrote:Quote:But the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Ronald Numbers viewed the phenomenon as a growing global issue, saying intelligent design had made significant inroads in Australia
Has NOT!! There has been THE SALE of a number of the 'anti-evolutionist' DVD -
Unlocking the Mysteries of Life - not quite the same thing, no?
Rational heads have prevailed....
Quote:"To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions."
Phew.
Thanks for that good news, Stilly.
husker wrote-
Quote:In Dover, Pennsylvania, a local school board was ousted over its requiring that intelligent design be taught in classrooms, and a group of parents has sued saying that violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
According to wande,who seems close to the scene in Dover,the SD/ID controvesy was played down by both sides in the recent election.It seems there were other issues.Perhaps wande will grace us with a clarification.
Re: Academics consider "intelligent design" museum
real life wrote:How come we haven't heard equal opportunity bashing of liberal Tony?
Because these forums and every other forums I've ever been to are US-biased. Everytime I try to steer the conversation towards British politics or any mention of Tony Blair, nobody's interested.
And frankly, Tony isn't very liberal. Despite the fact that he's Head of the Labour Party, most of his policies so far have been unusually right-wing for a socialist party.
Regarding Australia and the issue of intelligent design, the education minister for Victoria has already ruled that it should
not be included in science education. Here is a news story from October:
Quote:Victoria's government schools will treat intelligent design as a religious faith, not science, Education Minister Lynne Kosky has ruled.
In her first statement on the subject, Ms Kosky reaffirmed the principle that government schools were secular and did not promote any religion.
She said the two areas in which religion could be discussed were optional religious education lessons and VCE studies comparing religions.
"In line with the above principles, schools can decide whether to offer intelligent design as part of religious instruction," Ms Kosky said. "Parents will be given the opportunity to withdraw their child from the lesson." Intelligent design argues that gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution point to an "intelligent designer" of life.
Supporters of the theory, which include US President George Bush argue that the theory is scientific. Critics call it creationism in another guise.
Last week a coalition representing 70,000 Australian scientists and teachers likened it to the flat-earth theory.
Regarding Dover, Pennsylvania: During the school board campaign most candidates had the good taste to downplay the intelligent design issue and acknowledge there are many other educational issues to consider. However, one incumbent issued a controversial pamphlet suggesting that the anti-ID candidates were being funded by the ACLU. He stated that he himself feared the ACLU more than Al Quaeda. This incumbent received the least number of votes in the election.
wande quoted this-
Quote:Last week a coalition representing 70,000 Australian scientists and teachers likened it to the flat-earth theory.
I suggest in that case that Australia embarks on a retraining program for at least the "coalition".It isn't very seemly to suggest that the Australians are quite that thick.
It would be much easier if Australia concentrated on just retraining you, spendius.
wande-
Obviously.There's only one of me and I can get by on very little.
I read once that Australian scientists can predict when anybody will croak from an examination of one hair.You would think the actuaries from the insurance industry would be over there looking into it.Imagine having to enclose a hair with your insurance application or equity release form.And we are all in favour of scientific discovery and applying it aren't we.
There was an item on our news the other night which stated that this ID/SD argument is going international.Even in Russia.Isn't it odd that such a debate is taking place in view of the SODs pre-recorded voice telling the sweeties over and over and over again that they are "ludicrous","silly","stupid" and talking a load of shite.
And it was a bunch of ID plaintiffs who kicked off this particular round based on some speculative fancy about how their kids were going to be ruined for life haveing 3 paragraphs read out and a few well written juicy stories told them by some teachers who all have a different take on it anyway.
Speculations of that nature are not very scientific to me considering I was taught by priests and hold local records on certain types of sinning.
I posted these quotes from a Sunday New York Times article on the the.r ID debate thread and got no response so I'm reposting them here. ID is way over rated as an alternative to Natural Selection, and a threat to Darwinian Evolution. It is a fad that is fading
"Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker" NYT 12/04/05
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
Some interesting quotes:
Â…intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for.
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation,Â…
Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class."
Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced."
If you don't mind my ignoring the smokescreen I might add that to think that the idea that reading out 3 paragraphs and having some well written juicy stories told you by a range of teachers is going to ruin our ascendency bespeaks of a lack of self confidence and an admission that you haven't took the trouble to read The Opium Eaters and a total disregard of the intelligence of your own kids.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace