GWB endorses teaching "intelligent design" to schoolchildren!

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What might be interesting and educational is a comparison of how the scientific method has been applied to develop the theories of evolution and how it would need to be applied in order to develop "intelligent design" theory. To be honest though, not sure that schools really have all that much time to get that deeply into it. Perhaps if some breakthroughs in the development of "intelligent design" theory are forthcoming it can become a subject in school at that point (I almost wrote this with a straight face but not quite btw). Anyway this site claims that "Intelligent Design" is a product of the Scientific Method:

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who's a strong opponent of having creationism taught in science class, I'm more than willing to give ID a day in court, so to speak, to prove it's the product of scientific method; but I'd be surprised if ID proponents could do so in any kind of legitimate way (specifically how ID could be used to predict anything, or how those predicitions could be tested). Like you said, it takes quite the poker face to believe ID could satisfy the scruitny of objective scientific inquiry.

[tolbiny]

Nice link- i almost pity those who try to assail the infallible logic on that site.

[etgryphon]

Wow, DVaut1...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an American...

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to citizens of other nations, who indoctrinate their kids in school?


[/ QUOTE ]

It was only a qualifying statement meaning I can only speak as a citizen of the US who believes in the free exchange of ideas.

[ QUOTE ]

Haven’t traveled much in life, huh?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, comments like this do great to harm the perception of your objectivity and logic.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone argue with teaching various theories about the origins of life and leave it up to people to decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a similar vein, should we also teach kids 2+2 = 3, 2+2 = 4, 2+2=5 and leave it up to them to decide? How about teaching them alchemy in chemistry class? What’s the harm in that?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very poor example. The math and chemistry is easily proven erroneous from the outset.

Can you prove that Intelligent Design is incorrect? Can you prove that Macroevolution is correct? Both are theories that are in the process of providing evidence in their favor. The Evolutionary Model has a ton of interpretive data to back it up. Intelligent Design is a relatively new scientific theory and bases most of it's validity on math modeling which is scientific. To throw this out would be effectively like saying Einstein's General Theory of Relativity need not be taught or scrutinized because it couldn't be experimentally proven and was proved half-true and half-false in the 1919 eclipse expedition by Arthur Eddington to Principe Island. And not until recently has it been proven with the advent of better technology.

[ QUOTE ]

Please, may I never again hear the right (at least the right that defends equal time for creationism) criticize the left for being relativist and politically correct; the Christian Right’s assault on knowledge is the most abhorrent type of relativism and political correctness – denying objective truth and facts in favor of wishy-washy proclamations demanding equality for what’s clearly wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how is it clearly wrong? How is it denying objective truth and fact? ID has a growing following because of some very basic and compeling mathimatical evidence.

Macroevolution has no objective proof other than the interpolation of process on the microevolutionary scale which has been proven. A lot of the "proof" for Macroevolution is based on mathimatical modeling as well.

So Macroevolution is "proved" by the presence of the observable fossil record, interpolation of a lessor scientific process of microevolution which can be experimented and observed and repeated, and the presence of mathimatical modeling of the genesis of species based on the above presupositions. This is good science. I have no problems with this process nor should anyone.

Intelligent Design is a theory that is also based on the observable fossil record, the observable nature of present natural structure, the interpolation of a lessor scientific process of "irreducable complexity" which can be experimented on and interpreted, and the mathimatical modeling of the above presupositions. Doesn't sound all the dissimilar...

[ QUOTE ]

Since we’re talking about students here, then no, I don’t. I assume you don’t have the same confidence in children to make lifestyle decisions about drugs and sex. Considering the Christian Right fights just as hard to remove sex education from classes as they do evolution, you’ll excuse me if I laugh heartily at statements such as this that make appeals toward putting our faith in children to exercise sound judgment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, here is a bit of irrational logic. We are not talking about lifestyles only about science. Please stick to topics that are germane. But since you have brought them up, drugs are talked about in school in civics and sociology. Kids are taught about consequences of drug and they are still given the choice to live that way or not. As to sex education? Those are lifestyle choices and not science. Why should my kids be subjected to indocrination of lifestyle choices? They should be taught subjects not lifestyles. That is my job as a parent.

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if James Dobson would like high school students to be given a menu of birth control options and allow for them to ‘choose for themselves.’ I have a feeling he won’t share your confidence in their abilities, etgryphon.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are unmasking your true feelings. I think, if I am reading correctly, you hear "Intelligent Design" you automatically hear "Creationism", "Right Wing", "Ignorance" etc. I don't believe you have actually research or read anything from Intelligent Design advocates with an open mind. You also don't seem to understand the "proofs" of macroevolution and its evolving nature as new information comes to light.

I'm not here to prove "Intelligent Design" is correct and "Macroevolution" is incorrect. I don't really know, but I have taken the time to look at the evidence on both sides and I have my opinions and am swayed by the arguements.

I think it is only smart to provide both as a part of the educational process.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you may want to consider finding a dictionary or a science textbook and reviewing what a theory is.

You apparently still don't know what scientific theory is (here’s a hint: scientific theory (which evolution is) is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon which originates from observable facts or is supported by observable facts); as opposed to yours and the Christian Right’s definition of a theory, which is something like "some stuff I kind of made up and can't really prove."


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, wow...Such hostility. Do you really believe that someone will take you seriously when such emotionalism and prejudice is present in your writing. Thank you for explaining scientific theory to me I can't believe that I missed that in all the years of school and college I attended.

The enemy of science has always been the current established mindset. People don't like to think that they could be wrong because they are so smart. Science needs to be held lightly. We never know all the fact or know all aspects. We must never hinder scientific discovery and innovation because it doesn't fit with what we believe currently.

[ QUOTE ]

As someone who often sympathizes will the left, I’ll take responsibility for donkey’s like Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg if the right will take responsibility for donkey's like creationism advocates (at least the advocates who try to include it as a viable theory alongside evolution in public school; I'm more than willing to allow people to believe whatever they want, and teach their kids whatever they want in their own homes or in private school).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good then we are in agreement. But "Creationism" does not equal "Intelligent Design" even though a lot of creationist believe in "Intelligent Design". Evolutionist believe in an "Intelligent Design" often but they call it "Mother Nature" and "finding a way" etc. They are not far off from each other. Its only the fanatics of the established scientific tradition that are threatened.

-Gryph

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Some Native American religions which are on par with this theory are taught in History and Socialogy classes for information sake.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a HUGE difference between teaching it in History and Sociology versus teaching it in Science classh

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It was only a qualifying statement meaning I can only speak as a citizen of the US who believes in the free exchange of ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, what’s this opposed to? Other countries which indoctrinate their children in school? Since we all agree this is wrong, you’re meaning to imply that those who don’t want to allow creationism along side of evolution in public school are somehow akin to people who don’t want the free exchange of ideas. So the “As an American” was merely meant to portray creationism opponents (that is, those who feel is has no place in a public school science class) as somehow opposed to the free exchange of ideas, and by association, they’re un-American.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven’t traveled much in life, have you?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, comments like this do great to harm the perception of your objectivity and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could care less if my arguments are taken seriously (although this especially true of those who think ID is somehow equivalent in legitimacy to the theory of evolution).

Regardless, if you think America is the only place where the free exchange of ideas happens, then I believe you haven’t traveled/read/lived very much.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove that Intelligent Design is incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No more than I can prove aliens don’t exist, which is to say no one should be responsible for trying to disprove the improvable.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove that Macroevolution is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making this kind of distinction between marco-evolution and micro-evolution is just a tired strategy that creationists use to discredit evolution. There is a different between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, namely (and only) that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus.

But creationists will use micro-evolution to mean something like “natural selection” and then use the distinction to claim they believe in what’s obviously true (natural selection) while still continuing to have skepticism about ‘macro-evolution.’

Creationists have tried to create some other category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. In other words, anything that takes a long time and can’t be observed in a human lifespan, creationists call ‘macro-evolution.’

Regardless, if you accept micro-evolution (selection, mutation, genetic drift) to be true, you’re by definition accepting the veracity of ‘macro-evolution’.

[ QUOTE ]
Both are theories that are in the process of providing evidence in their favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligent Design isn’t a theory that can be proven or disproved by the scientific method. ID doesn’t predict anything, therefore it can’t be falsified. But since it’s not predicting anything, it’s not a scientific theory, just idle speculation that isn’t equivalent to actual, testable theories like evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
The Evolutionary Model has a ton of interpretive data to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

By ‘interpretive’, you mean ‘legitimate conclusions to be drawn from observable phenomena’, also known colloquially as the study of science.

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design is a relatively new scientific theory and bases most of it's validity on math modeling which is scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only ‘math modeling’ that ID does is claim that because life is so complex, it couldn’t have happened randomly. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of probability knows that merely because the probability of some occurrence is extraordinarily unlikely doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, and ID advocates deceptively play on our intuitive sense that if something is unlikely, it’s synonymous to being impossible. Poker players should be even better equipped to spot this fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
To throw this out would be effectively like saying Einstein's General Theory of Relativity need not be taught or scrutinized because it couldn't be experimentally proven and was proved half-true and half-false in the 1919 eclipse expedition by Arthur Eddington to Principe Island. And not until recently has it been proven with the advent of better technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely unrelated. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity can be proven/disproved using the scientific method, ID cannot. ID isn’t science, and it’s not accountable to the scientific method.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, how is it clearly wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

ID/creationism isn’t provable or improvable. It doesn’t adhere to the scientific method, since it can’t predict, so it’s clearly wrong to teach it as science. It has no place in a science classroom. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
How is it denying objective truth and fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists who want to attempt to discredit evolution by
placing creationism along-side of it in a high school science class are denying truth and fact.

[ QUOTE ]
ID has a growing following

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. Just because lots of uninformed people believe something doesn’t make it true, and just because ID proponents were able to convince other ignorant people of the same isn’t proof of ID’s viability.

[ QUOTE ]
because (ID has) some very basic and compeling mathimatical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not evidence, it’s just a fallacy that people with a low level of knowledge of probability find convincing...or people who are so dogmatic they’ll grasp at straws.

[ QUOTE ]
Macroevolution has no objective proof other than the interpolation of process on the microevolutionary scale which has been proven. A lot of the "proof" for Macroevolution is based on mathimatical modeling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The exact same processes which are the foundation of ‘micro-evolution’ are the same processes which exist in ‘macro-evolution’, which is to say that it’s the same process, no distinction exists, and if you believe in micro-evolution, than you (by definition) believe in marco-evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
So Macroevolution is "proved" by the presence of the observable fossil record, interpolation of a lessor scientific process of microevolution which can be experimented and observed and repeated, and the presence of mathimatical modeling of the genesis of species based on the above presupositions. This is good science. I have no problems with this process nor should anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as you agree it’s good science, then you should ridicule those who would put creationism along-side it, since creationism/ID is just bunk pseudo-science.

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design is a theory that is also based on the observable fossil record,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, ID merely takes the same fossil record that evolutionists use and claim that the conclusions actual scientists come up with are “highly unlikely;” this isn’t science, it’s just throwing [censored] against the wall to see what sticks.

[ QUOTE ]
"irreducable complexity" which can be experimented on and interpreted, and the mathimatical modeling of the above presupositions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irreducible complexity is essentially a rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William Paley at the start of the 19th century. Mostly, it goes like this:

1. Irreducible complex things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

Except that the only ‘proof’ for the claim that ‘irreducible complex things cannot evolve’ is that they’re complicated, therefore it’s unlikely to have happened randomly.

Again, anyone with just a small knowledge of probability knows that unlikely isn’t equivalent to impossible, and ID advocates are just preying on those who don’t understand that.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, here is a bit of irrational logic. We are not talking about lifestyles only about science. Please stick to topics that are germane.

[/ QUOTE ]

We’re talking about whether or not we trust the judgment of children to ‘decide for themselves,’ which is what you proposed we let children do.

[ QUOTE ]
But since you have brought them up, drugs are talked about in school in civics and sociology. Kids are taught about consequences of drug and they are still given the choice to live that way or not. As to sex education? Those are lifestyle choices and not science. Why should my kids be subjected to indocrination of lifestyle choices? They should be taught subjects not lifestyles. That is my job as a parent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, you don’t trust the ability of children to make correct judgments on their own (and neither do I). Yet that is the standard you chose to use in the science classroom. Perhaps you may also want to look up ‘hypocrisy’ in the dictionary.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are unmasking your true feelings. I think, if I am reading correctly, you hear "Intelligent Design" you automatically hear "Creationism", "Right Wing", "Ignorance" etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to creationism/ID, then yes, I think people who advocate that are ignorant. I said nothing about right-wingers. I know one poster here (adios) is solidly on the right, yet can’t keep a straight face when trying to argue for ID. Because it’s clearly ignorant to do so. Claiming that I’m calling everyone on the right ignorant is just trying to create martyrs where they don’t exist. I said nothing of the right-wing (other than they align themselves with creationism advocates), and they’re not a victim of any kind of cruel generalization. I never called right-wingers ignorant, and it’s disingenuous to claim that I did.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you have actually research or read anything from Intelligent Design advocates with an open mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have unfortunately been subjected to work from ID advocates, and had an open mind while doing so. It doesn’t take much of an open mind to discover ID’s blatant fallacies, though.

[ QUOTE ]
You also don't seem to understand the "proofs" of macroevolution and its evolving nature as new information comes to light.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ‘proofs’ of macroevolution are the same as the proofs of ‘microevolution’, and as new information comes to light, the theory of evolution is adapted (like all theories) to include this new information, which creates a stronger, more unified theory – which means the theory of evolution gets stronger with time. Doubters should be less inclined to have any skepticism as the theory gets stronger and incorporates new evidence. This is how science works.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not here to prove "Intelligent Design" is correct and "Macroevolution" is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can’t prove evolution is incorrect, which is why you’re smartly choosing not to try. And ID can’t be disproved scientifically, since it’s not accountable to the scientific method.

But if you’re not here to prove ID, I don’t know why you wasted your time spouting all that ID nonsense before.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really know, but I have taken the time to look at the evidence on both sides and I have my opinions and am swayed by the arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read more and reconsider, you’ve obviously been swayed in the wrong direction.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is only smart to provide both as a part of the educational process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, one (evolution) is fact and the other (creationism/ID) is just bogus pseudo-science. So, no, I think it’s a terrible idea to include both as part of the educational process (if by this, you mean presenting them as equivalents in a science class).

[ QUOTE ]
Again, wow...Such hostility. Do you really believe that someone will take you seriously when such emotionalism and prejudice is present in your writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re not a victim here. I’m not being emotional, nor prejudiced. Facts are facts. I apologize if strong arguments come across as hostility to you, but I wouldn't argue against nonsense any other way but forcefully.

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for explaining scientific theory to me I can't believe that I missed that in all the years of school and college I attended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you apparently needed them explained.

[ QUOTE ]
The enemy of science has always been the current established mindset.

[/ QUOTE ]

The enemy of science is a refutation of empiricism, not the establishment mindset; unless the establishment mindset attacks empiricism.

[ QUOTE ]
People don't like to think that they could be wrong because they are so smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment is just silly anti-intellectualism.

[ QUOTE ]
Science needs to be held lightly.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn’t.

[ QUOTE ]
We never know all the fact or know all aspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one claimed we could. This isn’t a sound argument for openly trying to confuse school children, though.

[ QUOTE ]
We must never hinder scientific discovery and innovation because it doesn't fit with what we believe currently.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I hope the Christian Right agrees.

[ QUOTE ]
But "Creationism" does not equal "Intelligent Design"

[/ QUOTE ]

They’re both pseudo-sciences like astrology and alchemy.

[ QUOTE ]
Its only the fanatics of the established scientific tradition that are threatened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think the scientific community feels threatened; that’s why hardly anyone in the scientific community feels the need to argue in favor of evolution; it’s proven fact. I don’t hear anyone in the ‘fanatical’ scientific community trying to debunk astrology, because it’s clearly as non-scientific as Intelligent Design.

[natedogg]

This is what happens when you have state run schools. Eventually someone gets into power that wants to change your agenda. All of the sudden, leftist supporters of state indoctination are squirming because the system they built is going to bite them in the ass now that an ignorant superstitious buffoon takes the reigns.

The litmus test for any govt intervention or expansion should always be: do I want to give the power to the worst possible person to wield it?

When it comes to state run schools, the answer is obviously no.

natedogg

[Snoogins47]

How about this.



"While the mechanisms of evolution are almost unequivocally true, it is slightly more of a gray area as to whether or not this can be extrapolated as the origin of all lifeforms alive today. Many (most? A statistic? I really don't know) in related fields believe this to be the case, but critics of this theory often offer alternate explanations, some of them religious in nature. For further reading about this topic, go to your library. Regardless, the evolutionary model is by far the most widely accepted, and therefore will be covered in detail in this chapter. At the end of the chapter, we will touch on the critics of the evolutionary model, and their alternate theories."

The biggest problem with this that I can see is that it's far too reasonable to appeal to either side. By leaving out the terms "Godless Atheist," "masturbators," and "moral cess-pool," the Christian right won't be happy, and without a direct comparison of The Bible to "Horton Hears a Who" the left won't shut up.

Anyway, you can all go on tooting your own horns about this nonsense, while I'll go on believing what any reasonable person believes: that we're actually all just clones of the master, and he will come to Earth on Halley's Comet with his race of hyper-advanced man-boy aliens and give us the gift of poisoned punch.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't teaching our kids promient relgious and scientific theories be considered educational, if taught in an objective manner?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you meant to type "prominent". If so, how can you possibly consider Intelligent Design "prominent"? It's just recently getting a lot of public notice, even on right-leaning outlets like Fox News. And the scientific community is generally rejecting it. So how is it prominent?

-ptmusic

[Chris Alger]

Anyone can fill the inherent gaps in scientific knowledge (understandings based on a rational, methodical analysis of evidence) with theology, scripture, ancient myths or, like Ptolemy, imagination. There's nothing wrong with this leap of faith practice until we contend that it's mandated by science itself. Then it's fraud. We can prove the fraud if we find false statements of fact that purportedly mandate such leaps of faith.

The fraudulent statement in your link is this one: "Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. . . . Because they exhibit high levels of [complex-specified information], a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these 'irreducibly complex' biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed."

The following dispositive reply by Richard Dawkins' indicates why virtually the entire scientific commmunity, with the exception of a handful of eccentrics, absolutely rejects this claim: <ul type="square">The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by a series of small modifications: 1) Improvements become necessities, 2) Loss of scaffolding 3) Duplication and divergence. By Behe's definition, many systems we see around us are IC, and yet have developed gradually. Think of the chaotic growth of towns into large cities, the self-organizing forces behind market economies, and the delicate causal webs that define complex ecosystems. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers routinely evolve irreducibly complex designs. So given an IC system, it could either be the product of coordinated design, or of a gradual, cumulative, stochastic process. The truth is, we should expect Darwinian evolution to produce such systems in biology, and not be surprised to find them. The underlying processes are called co-adaptation and co-evolution, and they have been understood for many years. Biochemical structures and pathways are not built up one step at a time in linear assembly-line fashion to meet some static function. They evolve layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling to serve current functions. The ability of life to evolve in this fashion has itself evolved over time. Detecting IC does not indicate design, and therefore Behe's hypothesis collapses.

H. Allen Orr says it best in his perceptive review: "Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong.[/list]Dawkins' site

Since the "complexity = design" argument is fradulent, all that's left of ID is the leap of faith to plug any holes scientific understanding. This is the erason that ID is just juiced-up "creationist science" bunkum.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is he doing this, he doesn't need the votes anymore, the only explanation left is that he really is clinically insane. Two theories? please give me a break.

Mack