I said in my initial post that I <i>didn’t see</i> how it was offensive.
Well in that case who said that it WAS offensive?
Who, me?
Yes, me!
Couldn’t be!
But then who?
I can’t really justify what I’m about to say because I’ve learned I talk in circles and make little sense, but it’s a myth not a fairy tale.
Jesus even I knew that.
Hobbes already explained good enough why religion should stay away from politics. Why can’t anyone do that for religion and science too, damnit? Is that so hard to understand? <b>No mixing. Thank you.</b>
“ID is not a science.” “ID is a pseudo-science”. Maybe even a crackpot science?
Agree.
But ID movement has recruited an impressive team of heavy hitters.
Amongst them is Michael J. Behe Ph.D. in Biochemistry who wrote ”Darwin’s Black Box”. That book should be a complimentary read to “Of Pandas and People “.
I am amazed at how easily the Discovery Institute, ID’s think tank, is winning the “marketing war” against the mainstream scientific community - books, lectures and even a scheme to encourage students to set up clubs to “investigate evolution” at schools and colleges. It looks like the nation is more receptive to pseudo-scientific concepts
And you know, Intelligent Design might be taught as part of science in most (if not all) of the American public schools. Sooner or later? Politically, it would be a very savvy move.
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.” – George W. Bush (08/01/2005)
And the audience is ready:
64 per cent of people questioned for a recent poll said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution in schools, while 38 per cent favoured replacing evolution with creationism.
1 adult American in five believes that the Sun revolves around Earth, according to one study carried out last summer.
80 per cent of Americans surveyed by the CNN TV news network believe that their government is hiding evidence of the existence of space aliens.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1582943,00.html
I found a really good article on this in the Times-Herald Record (our local newspaper), but their website doesn’t have it. Another newspaper has it (St. Paul Pioneer) however you have to register to get it, so I’m copy/pasting the stuff for you. It’s a really interesting viewpoint on this issue.
“God and science are not opponents”
LEONARD PITTS JR.
"The Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist group. It was organized in 1865 for the purpose of controlling and oppressing newly freed slaves through intimidation, violence and murder.
Not many people will argue with that. Historians in particular will find the statement uncontroversial.
But 10 years ago in Vicksburg, Miss., I learned an alternate view.
Vicksburg was an especially stubborn stronghold of Confederate sentiment during the Civil War — it refused to celebrate the Fourth of July again until 1944. Small wonder, then, that a museum there featured an exhibit claiming the Klan was actually formed to save the South from corrupt black governments and that, while “many people suffered, some no doubt innocently,” the night riders sought only to “restore some semblance of decency.”
It’s a lie, of course, but it’s a lie some of us believe. So here’s the question: When we teach schoolchildren about the Klan, must we give equal time to this view? Are we required to treat it as if it has the slightest credibility?
Or would that not be an affront to scholarship itself?
It’s science, not history, that went on trial last week in Harrisburg, Pa., but the questions still apply. Parents are squaring off in federal court over a local school board’s requirement that before children can be taught Charles Darwin’s theory that humanity evolved from lower animals, teachers must read a statement acknowledging “alternate” theories of human origin. This would include the theory of “intelligent design,” which holds that living things are so fantastically complex, they can only have been invented by some supernatural creator.
Proponents of the policy deny they are trying to sneak religion into the classroom. It is, they say, a matter of free speech: Students should be exposed to all sides of an issue.
But for that argument to hold water, you must have more than one side. Where science and the theory of evolution are concerned, you do not. It is the overwhelming consensus of the mainstream scientific community that Darwin had it right. So pretending there is another “side” to the question makes about as much sense as pretending there is another side to the Klan.
It reeks of false equivalence, no-fault scholarship, judgment-free education, the bogus notion that all points of view are created equal and are equally deserving of respect.
And that just ain’t so.
I believe in God. I believe God is the sovereign author of creation. But that is a matter of faith, not science. Faith, as it says in the book of Hebrews, is the evidence of things not seen. Science, by contrast, is founded upon observable phenomena. They are diametric opposites, but both seek the same goal: to help man and woman comprehend their lives and their world. To help them find answers.
I would argue that faith and science are in some ways more complementary than contradictory. But it’s telling that where they do conflict, as in the question of human origin, it’s always people of faith who beg for validation. I mean, when has any scientist ever sued for equal time in the pulpit?
There is an unbecoming neediness about these constant schemes to dress religion up as science. Why are some people of faith so desperate for approval from a discipline they reject?
It suggests an insecurity that belies the bellicose battle cry of Bible literalists: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” Or in the words of a church sign as related to me last month by a minister in Maine: Reason is the enemy of faith.
That’s a sad, troubling and even pathetic mindset.
We inhabit a universe vaster than human comprehension, older than human wanderings, more wondrous than human conception. And in the face of that, we do the natural thing. We ask questions and seek answers.
That’s not a denial of God. It is evidence of Him."
I don’t really agree with his conclusion, but the rest of it is fairly sound.
Keep in mind we’re talking about a people who can’t find Iraq on a map and who get thier “historical facts” from Hollywood. Oh yeah, and this:
1 adult American in five believes that the Sun revolves around Earth, according to one study carried out last summer.
So while I’m most interested in how the poll was conducted, don’t mind me if I don’t take popular opinion with all the salt in Utah.
And I don’t care if it’s “politically savvy”. Science classes are supposed to be observable and (dis)provable theories and hard facts. Until we can prove or disprove God (and good luck unless God’s out to be actively proved… and it’s not a wise idea to use “creation” to prove God, as that’s a circular argument), guess what- there’s no way to (dis)prove “intelligent design” and creationism.
It. Does. Not. Belong. In. Our. Biology. Classes.
Period. End of story.
The only thing I have against your article GAP is that Darwin didn’t have anything to do with human evolution and “The Origin of Species” had a 1 sentence reference to human evolution and how it was the topic for another discussion; he didn’t want to discuss it because of the religious contraversy he anticipated would arise from it. There’s so much misinformation going around because people don’t have the facts straight that it confuses the issue.
I didn’t know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
But if it was only discussed in one sentence in that book, where did he discuss it?
One of the evo profs I had a lot of respect for said it was towards the end. I never read it myself, but I trust this prof in particular. However, I do know enough about what Darwin presented and observed to say that he would not have presented human evolution. This is one of the reasons as to why I stress that people should NOT think of Darwinian natural selection as being equivalent with human evolution because it causes a knee jerk response to throw it away. Firstly, its incorrect to associate Darwin with human evolution specifically and secondly I think it is important to understand the concept of what evolution is before you can make any statement about what you think about any kind of evolution and why you accept or reject it.
People need to learn it first and then discuss how they think it applies to people after having a solid understanding of the biology on all levels, molecular and on the level of the organism. Once you do, of course, human evolution is hard to contest. However, one has to understand the basis of the science before making such statements.
However, one has to understand the basis of the science before making such statements.
Well, actually, according t Newton, whether it’s the sun revolving around Earth or Earth around the sun is a matter or reference point.Asking which revolves around the other is pointless.
Back to Evolution: I’m trying to make it shorter in each post, so let’s get more straight to the point. If you want ID, have it in theology or philosophy classes, not in Biology or (general) Sciences classes. So there.
I’m not too familiar with how courts work, but I’m confused as to why this trial is taking so long.
Because people are dumbfucks. Zealous dumbfucks at that.
I’m talking about the legal procedure of presenting witnesses, having them say what you want then concluding your arguments.
Holy Panda!
some 85 scientists are coming to the defense of the Dover Area School District.
The group has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Kitzmiller versus Dover case, urging the judge to affirm the freedom to pursue scientific evidence “wherever it may lead.”
Not all signers are proponents of the intelligent design model, but all agree that "protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge."
http://www.thewgalchannel.com/learningmatters/5055632/detail.html
Here is your chance to save American education from Chapman, Meyer, Dembski and other ID devotees.
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinalia/panda-monium.swf
Those guys aren’t scientists. Pseudo-scientists at best, but most likely just zelots with fake Ph. D.s or degrees from religious universities. I bet not one of the group is a biologist (not MD, they are NOT the same thing) or geologist, and if there is a certifiable scientist in the group, well, lets just say that he ain’t gonna be getting tenure much longer. Not at any university that I would respect.
Problem- if they wanted to pursue scientiic knowledge for Intelligent Design, they would be pushing it on colleges, and trying to get funding from colleges. They wouldn’t be pushing it on elementary/middle/high schools, where such knowledge is taught, not researched.
There is a blog of the PA trial here.
Although since it’s ran by the ACLU you can’t expect it to be too objective.