Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Intelligent design, inevitable demise
"Intelligent design" ruling (requires Acrobat) from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
First amendment doesn't seem the right basis for this decision.
They wanted the church-driven theory, a religious theoty by definition, taught in a "science" class, not in an "evolution" class. If they had wanted it taught in a religion class, it wo9uld have made more sense. But they didn't: They specifically wantred it taught as "science."
Regardless, what makes the courts experts in science . . . or religion? This matter should be decided by the local tax payers. If they decide that evolution is what they want taught, and evolution only, then fine.
Not a question of religion. Not a question of science. A question of law.
I swear (or affirm)! I don't see how you don't see the huge door this would open. Do you want ag classes to teach that cows, as the Hindus believe, are fricking holy? I don't think so.
And, I'm sorry, but any community that wants to teach that the earth is flat, as science, should have its schools taken over by the state government, and if the state doesn't have the balls, then the federal government -- for the sake of the nation at large, in national defense against an enemy domestic: Ignorance.
They want to teach that the earth is flat in a religion class, fine.
Besides, Rem, you know that you don't think any SCOTUS decision since 1803 is valid.
"The professor that taught my Evolution class openly derided Christians and all who dared to disagree with him on the subject."
Rem870's experience is not all that unusual.
I have always been a little more than peeved at "scientist" that violate the tenents of science. One of the biggest violators was a guy named Carl Sagan who blantantly challange relgious belief in his series Comos on Public Television, a great series but problematic. Science neither confirms or denies God, nor does it confirm or deny a creator. Within the Theory of Evolution there are hypotheses that random selection and random mutation are part of the mechanism of evolution. Random selection is coming more and more under scrutiny as a hypothesis, because of social and geogrphic elements involved as causation. Random mutation is not really random either and would be better described as not-on-purpose-by-the-organism mutation. For some in religious circles these are the real choking point, and for some scienctist these have become articles of faith.
True science requires that the cause of evolution be left open until the evidence is all in, say in 10,000 years from now if ever.
However some scientist treat science as their religion, they deny doing so, but their actions and positions fit the definition of 'true believers', when real scientist should be 'true sceptics'.
These "fundamentalist" scientist are no more helpful than the "fundametalist" religiousist when it comes to finding the truth. They both not only block the way, but serve has they have for rem870 and many many others, as a diversion from the truth by their domagtic rhetoric at both ends of the scale.
I believe that God created all things and that God did so under God's Laws and that God does not violate God's Laws. I also hold as true that the Theory of Evolution may be a reasonble facsimily of how part of those Laws work. Under my belief, supernatural intervention or miracles are not necessary, they are simply things not yet seen or understood within God's framework of Law. Scientist have their methodology of trying to understand those Laws and Religion has its methodology. In todays world they may seem to mutually exclusive, but sooner or latter they will both lead to the same place. Any priest of science or religion that interfers with either inquiry does so at their own risk.
"Ah, but arguing that the earth is flat can be easily refuted."
No. No, it can't. Not to people who, rightly or wrongly, believe it to be The Truth as an article of "faith"!
Creation Science - or Intelligent Design - is not science. Not because it is wrong, but because it can't be wrong.
It's a mistake to say that a science provides a correct set of statements about the world. A science provides nothing more - and nothing less - than a heuristic, a conceptual framework and method for making predictions about what we're likely to find and where to look. And the glory of science is that these predictions can fail to pan out. One of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown stories made the point that honesty about failure was the special heroism of science. Karl Popper talked about falsification as the essence of the scientific method. You cannot prove a theory, but you can disprove it OR disprove the offered alternatives. In a later development, Thomas Kuhn described the paradigm shift, that theory yielded to theory not because it was wrong, but because the accretions of minute corrections required to make something square with the data made it more unwieldly and less useful than another alternative. - not because a theory was ever completely "falsified" - not even Flat Earth. This is what makes that brilliant dismissal by Freeman Dyson so biting: "Not even wrong."
Suspended over this from a horsehair is the very sharp razor donated by William of Occam.
Creation "science" can't be disproven, is untestable, because it cannot make a prediction other than, "You will never be able to connect all the dots, and where the dots do not connect, there is God."
Again, this might even be right, say we pious agnostics, but it cannot be wrong.
Evolutionary scientist, Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
Professor Lewis T More, Evolutionist, said, "The more one studies the paleotological record, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."
Professor David Allbrook, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Western Australia, said, "Evolution is a time-honored scientific tenet of faith".
And lets be serious. Creation is the impetus behind the ID debate.
It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in Creation.
Therefore, Perhaps the ACLU should sue to have evolution removed as a course of study in the science classrooms of our public schools.
Finally, if you want to believe your ancestors were monkeys, go ahead. I find that idea insulting to my intelligence.I prefer to believe my ancestors were intelligent.
Fare thee well, cruel blog world.
Mark, you have met my wrath, but it has nothing to do with this. And I think Tstockmann trumped ou on the evolution deal. But that's just me.
My comments were sent in another direction. 'Sides, ER knows I can't stay away
1. Evolution is a theory; hence it is called Darwin's Theory and not Darwin's Law .
2. There are numerous theories for the creation of the universe. I leared each of them when studying the world's religions in social studies class.
To require teachers to read a disclaimer declaring what is already said is overkill; to teach a belief as a scientific theory is folly.
By the way ER, you have been tagged. Head to my blog.
English do not equal intelligence. One who thinks they do is pompous, self-serving and, in the end, stupid. Those who judge others thusly alienate friends and family.
English do not equal intelligence. One who thinks they do is pompous, self-serving and, in the end, stupid."
I hate pompous people and some of the most educated people I know are pompous, but people who are anti-education and anti-intelectual are even more pompous. So I'm going to put my pomposity right up there against yours.
You are right education and degrees don't equal intelligence.
They equal being educated. They equal years of effort within the person's life, they equal a whole bunch of money and years of debt. They equal the intellectual sacrifice of cherished personal beliefs in the light of reality.
They equal the sacrifice of Ego to those who you may consider less than you but who are your teachers of the moment.
They equal work, time, and treasure.
Some, after all of that, don't come out any smarter, but the vast majority do. They have learned to learn and that is the pay off.
Those who don't indulge in education my be as smart as those who do, but they will also be more ignorant because they haven't invested that work, time, and treasure.
As an example, a few of those on this blog who, after being told time and again by several people that a scientific theory isn't like one of their personal theories, still persist in not understanding that. You have not learned to learn.
You fail to read, understand, and learn, you fail to listen and understand, you think you are content with where you are and who you are and don't want to work at being more.
That is ignorance compounded by stupidity.
Anti-intellectualism was one of the first tenants of the German Brownshirts. But you know, after the Brown shirts were used for their purpose they were destroyed in mass.
Wearing your ignorance and/or stupidity as a Badge of Honor is not a wise thing to do. Documenting it is even worse.
But it doesn't have to be that way, it is a choice, and in America there is always a way to find education available.
I found this on the Web, purported to be a quote from Darwin's "The Origin of Species" : It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Teditor for POTUS!
"So EV and ID are one and the same.
# posted by Anonymous : 12:43 PM
"Scientist have their methodology of trying to understand those Laws and Religion has its methodology. In todays world they may seem to mutually exclusive, but sooner or latter they will both lead to the same place."
Amazing, we agree!
There's only one reason I'd care to be POTUS: The chicks seem to dig it.
1. In her effort to defend me, she went on the attack.
2. The notion that ID is "science" really, really, really makes her nuts, as a scientist and a Christian.
3. Most importantly, I think she did the equivalent of the following:
Grown nephew of mine and I were arguing in a bar one night, getting up in each other's faces and literally bumping chests, the way guys do sometimes, arguing about -- you guessed it -- politics. The bar manager came and "separated" us and was going to toss us -- until we hugged and laughed and explained to him that we were kin and that's just how we got along.
I think Dr. ER mistook some of the regular bluster of the Erudite Redneck Roadhouse and, in light of No. 1 and No. 2, came across meaner than she meant to be and more arrogant than she is.
She is not mean. She is not arrogant. Neither of us suffer fools gladly, however. (That is a grand old phrase; I ain't callin' none of y'all fools!)
Oh, and -- since you're going to delete this anyway as being impertinent to her -- Merry Christmas!
Four to eight years of power ain't worth 20 years of your life.
"She is not mean. She is not arrogant."
Well, I may have ponder that a bit.
I guess I'll have to agree with you ER otherwise she'll beat me up for not agreeing to her humilty within her greatness.
Drlobo: Yer kidding.
The only people who hang out here regularly who judge people by the letters behind their name are a handful of people -- OK, Mark -- who almost always disparage book learnin' as not as valuable as 'sperience.
The rest of us know that both are valuable. Some of us do value one over the other because of our experience! Which is some kind of circular logic oe something.
Anyway, the letters in the name of this blog are there as part of the schtick -- a redneck with a genyoowine edumucation, which some people don't "get" -- and because I was in the throes of my last semester of an M.A. in history, for which I busted my 37-40-year-old ass, and for which I am damn proud.
Y'all should forgive me if I am just a little prouder of that M.A. than the time I spent working in a factory, or hoeing fricking watermelons, ot hauling hay, or working in truck stops, or working in book stores, or any of the other things I've done.
I'm proud of everything I've done and been -- but NOTHING beats earning that mid-career master's. That's just me.
As far as what I said I stand by, but if it doesn't fit you then it wasn't really ment for you. There are plenty of others that I wish would absorb it.
I do have a lot, that's a LOT, of opinions on education. I have spent too much of my life on the subject however.
It is described by a single Law and moral principle, offering its own proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, by a direct intervention into the natural world, delivering a correction to human nature, including a change in natural law [biology], consciousness and human ethical perception [proof of the soul], providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition!
So while proponents of ID may have got the God part right, if this development demonstrates itself to be what it claims, and the means exist to do so, all religious teaching, tradition and understanding of ID are wholly in error, while the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock.
However improbable, what history and theology have presumed to be impossible is now all too achievable. The implications defy imagination! No joke, no hoax and not spam.
Review copies of the manuscript, prior to paper publication, are a free pdf download from a number of sites including: www.energon.uklinux.net and http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com