And our favorite state politican is back in the headlines today. Utah State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan), who has spent the entire summer auditioning for the role of village idiot, is once again leading the charge to introduce ‘divine design’ into Utah biology classes:
If human evolution is taught in biology class, then the idea of an intelligent force creating the universe ought to be taught in philosophy or another required class, a Utah senator told state school officials Wednesday.
But State Office of Education leaders, who met with Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, on the matter, don’t want to add that instruction, curriculum director Brett Moulding said.
If the two sides can’t compromise, Buttars says he’ll carry a legislative bill to make sure that they do.
“Legislation is a last resort,” Buttars said. “I’m still working on it, but I’m really not highly hopeful we’ll come to a consensus.”
Considering his first resort was to publicly make an ass out of himself repeatedly, and then, just for good measure, go to the editorial page of USA Today and give the whole nation a dose of his foolishness, you can imagine how eager I am to see what the ‘last resort’ will look like.
Although I have to admit- watching Sen. Buttars and the Utah BOE argue over the educational merits of Nietzche v. C.S. Lewis might be entertaining enough to galvanize my support for any legislation he might propose.
*** Update ***
The cunning souls who propound intelligent design are playing with fire, because they have introduced intelligence into the discussion. It is a standard to which they, too, must be held. The theory of intelligent design must itself be intelligently designed. I cannot judge the soundness of their science, but that is not the only standpoint from which they must be judged. Their science, after all, is pledged to a philosophy. Philosophically speaking, I do not see that they have demonstrated what they congratulate themselves for demonstrating. The “argument from design,” the view that the evidence for the existence of God may be found in the organization of the natural world, is an ancient argument, but philosophers have grasped, at least since the sixth section of the third chapter of the second book of the Critique of Pure Reason, that it may establish only the wisdom of a creator, and not the existence of one. It is impossible, of course, not to marvel at the complexity and the beauty of the natural order; but marveling is not thinking. The mind may recoil from the possibility that all this sublimity came into being by accident, but it cannot, on those grounds alone, rule the possibility out, unless it is concerned only to cure its own pain. (Cosmic accident is also an occasion for awe.) Intelligent design is an expression of sentiment, not an exercise of reason. It is a psalm, not a proof…
I had thought, in my Judaic innocence, that Aquinas had gloriously secured natural causality for the Church once and for all. Now I must suppose that the Church’s unsophisticated new construction of God’s will is a manifestation of God’s wisdom. For His agents on Earth have cultural uses for anti-Darwinism. They think it will make us good, because Darwin makes us bad. No doubt this is why President Bush wants “to expose people to different schools of thought,” and have intelligent design taught alongside evolution: to retard our corruption. But isn’t the idea that morality is founded in nature itself a sin of materialism? And are we to teach other false ideas alongside other true ones? I do not want my son to waste his time on phlogiston. I mean, what is truth? The question is begged yet again, this time by the pomo of Crawford.
Amen.
Mike S
I was listening to the morally superior Michael Medved recently going on about ID. Being morally superior and highly religious, he obviously won’t lie.
He spent an hour claiming that ID has nothing to do with religion or God.
Slartibartfast
Ass is the first name of his last name.
This is a rather disingenuous attempt at subterfuge. If there are more than a handful of atheists endorsing ID, I’ll eat my hat. And I think anyone religious who’s hopped the ID bandwagon insisting that they’re doing so for scientific reasons is either outright lying or doesn’t have the intellectual tools to distinguish science from science fiction.
BumperStickerist
I have no problem with that.
But the school district next door to mine wants to require ID taught in Science class as an alternative theory to evolution.
That I have a problem with because ID is not science, even if it’s done by scientists.
DougJ
Why is that the evolutionists can’t argue about ID? All they can do is call people who believe in creationism idiots. When you’re reduced to name calling, it means you’re on shaky ground as far as a real argument goes.
Blue Neponset
DougJ,
In the immortal words of George W. Bush:
Bring it on.
I would love to have a discussion about the merits of Divine Design.
Leon over at Macho Nachos (John has a link to his blog) has a story about the ‘common sense’ of DD. Not too many comments yet, but his blog is definatley one where defenders of DD have a home court advantage.
BumperStickerist
Doug –
a quick analogy on why ID doesn’t need to be taught in science.
—————————————————
Mathematics is founded on the unprovable notion that ‘x=x’ .. Three is equal to 3 because, well, we don’t know why, but it is.
Three being equal to ‘3’ works really, really well. So does one being equal to ‘1’ and one million two hundred seventy-nine thousand eleven being equal to “1,279,011”.
Math is so well laid out that, it’s intuitively obvious that there must be some intelligence behind the math – ‘x=x’ couldn’t just ‘be’.
So, I think kids should know that – that ‘x=x’ is not proven and that it’s possible that God some Intelligence design created what we call ‘mathematics’.
Obviously, math text books should include a caveat, maybe one hour on lecture, on the intelligent design features inherent in math; that some Divine power is possibly responsible for this.
2+2 equals 4 — because God wants it to.
What’s wrong with that?
—————————————————
ET
“entire summer auditioning for the role of village idiot”
OK that was just funny.
goonie bird
we came from intelligent design and we sure did,nt come from a ape and no fish ever had legs becuase liegs look silly on a fish
DougJ
BumperStickerist, the way that math is currently taught does not undermine religion. It does not directly contradict what is in the Bible. I’m not asking that every single subject include references to God and the Bible, I’m simply asking that when a “scienctific” theory flies in the face of both common sense and what is in the Bible and believed to be true by most Americans, then, maybe, just maybe, the other side should be allowed to present its argument too. Is that asking too much?
Cyrus
Yes, because a required course in philosophy is just what struggling high schools need these days…
Okay, let’s argue about ID (and I reserve the right to cowardly silence and to not respond right away every time because I have the attention span of a mosquito and I’ve read about this so much lately that I’m a little bored.)
I say ID is not science because there’s no way it could be tested, let alone falsified.
I also say that most of the attacks on evolution are a) already rebutted by existing research, and b) holding the theory of evolution to the ridiculouly high standard of explaining everything or being rejected, something almost nothing has ever met.
I also say that many if not all of the people making those attacks, even though they may claim to be motivated purely by scientific principles, are in fact trying to get religion into government and public schools, thereby violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Therefore, since ID is not science, since the theory of evolution is much stronger science than its detractors would claim, and since there is a concerted effort to teach religious dogma in public schools using ID as the “missing link” backwards, to borrow the expression, I think ID should not be taught in public schools and definitely not in science class.
There. And I didn’t even use the word “creationism,” let alone mention the cognitive faculties of young earth creationists. Aren’t you proud? :)
yet another jeff
DougJ…and the way Biology is currently taught undermines religion?
Actually, the math only kinda contracticts what’s in the bible…the value of pi in the bible is exactly three.
What is the ID argument? It’s not a theory, it’s not even an educated guess so it might not even be a hypothesis…but, test it and give some results, and maybe then it can be called a theory.
7
Until ID can not be considered science until it can produce evidence that stands up to the tests the evidence for evolution passed. Has ID ever produced such evidence? No. “The other side” has made their case in countless self published “studies”, all of which have been rejected by the science community because they do not meet the standards or are based on incorrect methodology.
Cyrus
Also, Doug, what about evolution contradicts common sense? Putting aside the question of how life began – and by the way, I’m pretty sure that’s a very different debate – what is so counterintuitive about “survival of the fittest”?
ppGaz
Sometimes it just means that you are talking to people who don’t listen, and you’re fed up with them.
Sometimes, it’s just calling a spade a spade.
Eh, Dougie?
Don Surber
I’m sorry but it is difficult to read about Buttars, R-West Jordan, without thinking of a certain South Park character.
If others have previously made this association, I apologize for really, I have passed the comments on this subject by
BinkyBoy
Oh Jeff, yee of so little faith and understanding of the bible, have you not read that science has misunderstood the bible on the value of pi?
http://www.learnthebible.org/molten_sea_value_of_pi.htm
And if we’re all wrong about pi, can we also not be wrong about an intelligent designer and his function in science?
Mr Furious
1. It doesn’t “fly in the face of” my common sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense to me.
2. That it flies in the face of what is in the Bible is utterly irrelevant. Even ID doesn’t even seem to have its story straight with the Bible, BTW. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the Bible is not the reference for everything, if it were, we’d be debating a lot more than evolution.
3. You can present your argument in a private school, sunday school or if it is going to intrude into public school, it is in an elective Philosophy or Religion class, not Science.
pmm
Ppgaz, if you’re so inclined, I’ve responded to your comments from last night’s ‘judicial system’ thread. I’d be interested in your response.
(Damn this addictive Balloon-Juice, I can’t believe I’m now the sort of commenter who leaves this sort of post.) I need a life…
7
Please go to talkorigins.org . No name calling there, just the facts, ma’am. Just cold hard incontrovertible facts, something of which ID has never been able to produce.
BoDiddly
To commenters: please read this post carefully. It is against weak Christianity, not against evolution.
I actually have to concur with Medved’s position as stated here (probably not his underlying sentiment, though), saying that ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion or god. Problem is, it also has nothing to do with science.
ID is a feeble attempt to “save” God from the perceived assaults of scientific thought. It’s put forth by weak (or scared) Christians who have so little faith in their God as to think that He had to rely upon scientifically-feasible means to create the world. I personally wouldn’t want to place my faith in a god who is limited by science.
I don’t want ID (or creationism, for that matter) taught in school. Period. I will teach my own children what I consider to be the truth about God and the Bible, and work diligently to instill in them my own love for science and scientific thinking. Trouble is, most Christians don’t know enough about Christianity or Science to effectively teach either.
BumperStickerist
The ID argument consists of assigning a causation that can’t be proved or disproved, but one which is useful for discussion in other, non-science endeavors. e.g. “God made it such that ‘x=x'” …
As a pastor ‘splained in cathecism class a long time ago – “God answers the who and why – Science answers the when, what, and how”
JWeidner
Your solution is simple DougJ. Present a scientifically researched conclusion that presents some form of evidence for the validity of ID, and not just “It’s in the Bible”, or “Life is too complicated, therefore intelligence designed it”, and maybe I might start believing in ID. But to just make a statement like “An eye is too complicated to have evolved, that’s proof for ID”, is no proof at all. All that is is your statement of belief (Hypothesis). Back it up with scientifically reviewed and accepted research and evidence. Otherwise, your theory of ID is no more valid than the theory of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and doesn’t deserve a place in a science classroom.
And to say that evolution flys in the face of common sense…well, to you maybe it does. To me, ID flys in the face of common sense and I certainly don’t want my son taught something as farcical as “somewhere out there is the Great Intelligent Designer who is not officially God (wink wink) but he did everything that the Bible says that God did.”
DougJ
The trouble is that left-wing scientists have ginned up the rules of what they call science so that faith-based approaches can’t compete on equal footing. As soon as someone mentions God or the Bible, they start saying it’s not “science” anymore. It’s an insidious way to keep faith out of the debate.
yet another jeff
The problem is that when someone mentions God or the Bible, it isn’t science anymore…it’s difficult not to shield people from that fact when discussing things.
yet another jeff
Left-wing scientists and their proposals of survival of the fittest…where the strong survive.
Yeah, that’s the definition of left-wing philosophy, DougJ.
Defense Guy
True. However the science to speculation ratio is tilted pretty far to the speculation side when the subject is the source of life on earth. Try getting a die hard advocate of the ‘science can explain everything absolutely’ camp to admit it.
ppGaz
Well, I’m on my way out the door for the weekend.
If this is about “guilty free – innocent jailed” then I don’t have much more to say on the subject.
We may be talking apples-oranges.
Refusal to accept poor performance is not the equivalent of demanding a “perfect system.” It means working to perfect the system even though it cannot be made perfect. In the case of criminal justice, it means holding the government to a constant and high standard of performance, and checking their power.
It’s that simple. Talking about “accepting” innocent people in jail is an exercise in churn. Nobody accepts it, because nobody would accept being jailed if innocent. One can only pretend to ‘accept’ it if one pretends that it’s somebody else who gets jailed. If one innocent man is jailed, we have all lost freedom.
Ergo the phrase, “justice for all.” Not most.
tBone
DG, every time this subject has come up here, I’ve seen the “die hard advocates” bend over backwards to point out that the science surrounding the origins of life is far from clear at this point. (Also, that evolution and the origin of life are two different things, a point you continually seem to miss.)
And I have never seen anyone claim that “science can explain absolutely everything.” Obviously there are gaps and flaws in our scientific knowledge. So what? Science is an ongoing process to further and refine our knowledge, not a race to a finish line of “perfect understanding”.
Defense Guy
tBone
I miss no such thing. The evolution side wants to have it both ways. You could prove me wrong by advocating for the removal of source of life arguments from science class, but since this is the real source of contention, I do not think you will do so.
yet another jeff
Defense Guy:
I can’t find any people that believe current science explains everything absolutely. I suspect that if there is such a camp, they’re not very good at scientific method.
7
Fact: The scientific method for which all theories must adhere to was in fact drawn up CENTURIES ago. By people who, surprise surprise, believed in God and Jesus and often had God’s representative as a boss (Pope, King etc). The test ID has to pass has not changed probably since the times of Copernicus.
Defense Guy
yet another Jeff
Fair enough, and I am willing to retract that characterization completely for purposes of this discussion. The larger point still stands, IMO.
7
Abiogenesis, the study of life origins, is not something that I would imagine is taught much in your basic high school bio class. I know it wasn’t in mine. It was covered in Bio 2 and AP Bio, both of which were electives. It is assumed that if a student wished to take such classes, they are probably not opposed to examining the many scientific theories regarding this discipline. If they are, they don’t belong in the class. It would be like saying, “I want to take AP English Lit, but because of my faith, I don’t want to read anything written by a woman.”
DougJ
I just think that the whole idea that we should leave faith out of investigation is inherently biased. There are many questions about the universe that we will not be able to answer merely by trial and error. I approve of science up to a certain point, but I think it would better to adopt a faith-based approach to scientific investigation.
I just find the liberal approach, so arrogant, so know-it-all, so lacking in Christian humility. They all sound Paul Krugman — well informed, on top of all the facts and figures — but lacking in a deeper understanding of things. And this is part of why hate George Bush so much. This president doesn’t always have all the facts and figures at his fingertips, but he has faith to guide him in his decision-making. In the end, I’ll take a leader who communes with Jesus over a leader who talks with all those so-called “experts”.
tBone
No, I don’t want it both ways. I want science in science classes. Abiogenesis is not a well-understood area yet, but it’s being explored using scientific methodology. The same can’t be said of ID. Do you see the distinction?
(FWIW, I think any teacher who presents this subject needs to make it clear that there’s a lot we don’t understand yet.)
Defense Guy
tBone
You will be hard pressed to find a statement by me indicating that ID is something that could be called acceptable science.
tBone
C’mon, you can do better than this, buddy. Usually you’re very good at stopping at “unbelievably stupid,” but this time you crossed the line into “so stupid, no one could actually believe this.”
Or, wait, let me guess – you’re the fake DougJ?
tBone
Fair enough. What I’ve gotten from your comments here and on other threads, though, is that you put ID and abiogenesis on roughly the same level – i.e., not acceptable science. Is that an inaccurate read of your position?
7
I just think that the whole idea that we should leave faith out of investigation is inherently biased…
Science is biased towards facts, if one cant provide evidence to support their conclusions, then its not science. Furthermore, I cant think of a more inherently biased institution than religion. Going around, proclaiming that one speaks for God and everyone else is wrong? That’s hardly neutral.
I think it would better to adopt a faith-based approach to scientific investigation.
We never have, why should we start now? Are you saying that we should just give up on developing new medicines and instead just have faith that illness will suddenly go away? Give up on developing drought resistant crops and just have faith that enough rain will fall?
I just find the liberal approach, so arrogant, so know-it-all, —well informed, on top of all the facts and figures—but lacking in a deeper understanding of things
Firstly, it is not a liberal approach, it is a scientific approach. Science has no political affiliation. There are as many conservative as there are liberal scientists. I find it hard to believe that the scientists that build chemical and atomic weapons are left leaning God hating liberals. This may come as a shock to you, but you and I don’t get to decide what constitutes science and what doesn’t, just like we don’t get to say what is considered algebra and what is not. If there is a deeper understanding of things one craves, that is what art class, music class, literature and philosophy class is for. That is not something that is going to be covered in a math or science class. It never has been.
DougJ
“there are as many conservative as there are liberal scientists.”
I read that 75 perecent of scientists voted for Kerry. That sounds liberal to me.
Bugboy
@DougJ:
You can’t reason with idiots and you can’t reason with blind faith, therefore, blind faith = idiots. No name calling there, just an empirical formula. ID can provide nothing but simple, blind faith and the incapacity to understand that lack of understanding does not require causation by a deity.
Bugboy
@DougJ:
As far as scientists voting for Kerry, you would have to be pretty stupid to swallow Bush, Inc.’s sale’s pitch. See above comment about idiots.
DougJ
Bugboy, what I’m trying to say is that scientists are liberals for the most part. And they constitute an unelected elite that gets to set the rules about how we argue about the orignis of life. Does that seem fair? That we should allow an overwhelmingly liberal group to set the ground rules for the discussion of some of the most important issues?
Mr Furious
“I read that 75 percent of scientists voted for Kerry. That sounds liberal to me.”
That would sound liberal to you. You are completely biased when you interpret a statistic like that. It doesn’t mean anything about the scientists. Could it be that because the Bush Administration has shit all over the scientific community for four years, they might go in another direction? And all this before we even got to ID v. Evolution?
Perfectly reasonable conservative or even (gasp) Republican scientists might get resentful of having their life’s work demeaned, ignored or misrepresented for years on end.
I prefer to think of that 75% as reality-based — not liberal — votes.
DougJ
As a conservative, I consider myself faith AND reality based.
yet another jeff
Not to mention that at this point, there is no evidence for the 75%, so DJ is taking it on faith that 75% of scientists voted for Kerry…and that the profession of “scientist” is clearly defined as a statistical sample.
Cyrus
Doug,
I just think that the whole idea that we should leave faith out of investigation is inherently biased.
It is only inherently biased against relying exclusively on tradition, personal feelings and faith. If you think a person should rely on that stuff and nothing else, then I have to wonder how you’re reading this, because computer technology depends on advances in scientific theory made possible by rejecting tradition and common sense hundreds of times.
In fact, I like your choice of the word “investigation.” If faith should be used in scientific investigations, should it also be used in criminal investigations? That would make some funny episodes of Law & Order:
“So you saw the defendant at the scene, but did you actually see him holding a gun?”
“No. I just have a feeling.”
“I rest my case.”
Faith is great, it is excellent, it is wonderful. But it is not science. The lack of a belief in something bigger than ourselves is part of the definition of nihilism and even defeatism, IMO. But despite that fact that I have such a belief, I’m capable of getting through an entire day without dwelling on it and insisting that other people do the same. If a person is not capable of going so long without it, and even if they also are certain about all the details of the nature of God, fine. They still could be a good person, a productive member of society, blah blah blah. (And it’s sad I have to add these qualifiers.) But they belong in a science lab or a science class as much as someone with an equally powerful love of heavy metal belongs in a library.
Bugboy
@DougJ:
You babbling is not worthy of a response. Please state facts, not your own personal emotional response and bias, possibly due to your own lack of education and resultant opportunities education presents. I’ve seen it before, your mendacity is no stranger to me, a scientist.
Cyrus
You aren’t helping, Bugboy. Also, your logic is stupid. You can’t reason with idiots and you can’t reason with blind faith, therefore, blind faith = idiots. Would you also say “Dogs have tails and cats have tails, so dogs = cats?” Tell me, are you actually a left winger of the (rare) far left that John occasionally jumps down the throat of, or are you from equally far to the right and are trying to discredit the genuine liberals around here?
DougJ
Cyrus, Bugboy sounds like a typical liberal to me.
Defense Guy
tBone
What I would hope that you would take from my comments is that the science of abiogenesis (life from no life), is that it is not something that is proven enough to be considered settled science. Take for example, the idea that even if you can create life where there was none before, it is not proof that this is how life started here.
Bugboy
I’m not anything, and yes, I was being flippant with my idiot = blind faith formula. But what else can you do when you see society slipping backwards from the Enlightenment?
I don’t want to live in a theocracy, thank you. You don’t have to be a left winger or right winger to feel that way. And I’ve had a lifetime of people imagining I am treating them in an inferior manner just because I have an education.
Defense Guy
Now don’t take this without the humor in which I intend, but you might have spent some time learning critical thinking when getting that education. If you cannot tell why I would say that, then you have no right to spout that your education makes you superior in any way.
7
Newsflash. The majority of scientists voted for neither because the majority of scientists are not Americans. Scientists come from nearly every nation on the planet and subscribe to a myriad of faiths.
7
First, that is your opinion. Again, we don’t get to decide what the scientific community considers worthy of study. Second- Is the solution is we should just ignore it, forbid the teaching of any work that has been done, and just simply pretend that this field does not exist? How are we to learn about this if we don’t study it?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t want us to learn about it.
Mr Furious
“…scientists are liberals…they constitute an unelected elite that gets to set the rules…”
Curse those activist scientists!
What a fucking joke. Do you throw the “elite” label on anyone who doesn’t hang out with Cooter at the garage? You and Oxford-educated O’Reilly just keep complainin’ about the “elites”…
Bugboy
@Defense Guy:
Where in anything I wrote did I state (or spout as you say) my education makes me superior in any way? Or did you imagine I said that like many people I’ve met do.
7
What “Rules”? The rules on what keeps the earth spinning around the sun? The rules that make photosynthesis work? The rules that tell us what goes up must come down? The rules that show us having DNA 95% identical to a chimpanzee? Yes, you’re right, elite liberals in ivory towers made up those rules.
Please
For the 100th time. ID is not being asked to do anything different than any other scientific theory has had to do in order to gain acceptance. It has to produce evidence in order to support the theory. So far it has not.
Defense Guy
How does one know exactly what others may be imagining? I am also curious how you come to the conclusion that anyone is trying to turn the country into a theocrocy or turn back the clock on the enlightenment? Which is why the critical thinking snark.
Defense Guy
7
If you cannot even be bothered to approach this from an honest standpoint, without attempting to put words in my mouth or ascribe to me something that I did not say or even infer, than I will not be bothered to take your questions seriously.
7
Defense Guy
If some one took what I said out of context, my first reaction would be, “I didn’t make myself clear, let me try again”.
You did say that that abiogenesis is not considered settled science. I don’t know where you got that from. Clearly it is something that is being studied. Do you have some inside information about what scientists consider worthy of merit and what is not?
Defense Guy
It is not about what they consider worthy of study, it is about whether they can prove it to the point that it would be acceptble to teach our kids it is a fact rather than just speculation based on some facts. You still always have to prove causality, and the simple truth is that in the discussion of lifes origins, this may not be possible.
I am not suggesting that it should not be studied, just that we are honest enough to state the facts about what we know, what we think we know, and what we may never be able to know with enough certainty to call it settled. If we can’t do that, we are just making up what should be considered science in the first place.
7
First, evolution is not taught as a fact, it is taught as a theory. Im am not trying to be rude, but you need to acquaint yourself with the definitions of scientific hypothesize, scientific theory and scientific fact. Once you see what the definitions are from the scientific perspective you will understand.
Second, the evidence that supports evolution is a fact. There is no way you’re going to get around it, but the DNA of a chimp and the DNA of a human are almost identical. There is no disputing that whales have vestigial anatomy of land mammals. The same goes with all the hundreds of pieces of evidence that support evolution.
Third- this is not mere speculation. If you understood what it takes for something to be considered valid from a scientific point of view you would realize that. It can take years, even decades for a new discovery to gain acceptance. It has to pass a rigid test, a test that has existed for centuries. The science that has not passed that test does not make it into the classroom. Sure a teacher may anecdotally touch on some new upcoming research, but they certainly are not going to test their students on something like that.
If you want children being taught only what is a bona fide scientific fact, then be careful what you wish for. There is more evidence in support of evolution than there is to support the theory that cigarettes cause cancer. The cigarette/cancer link is, by definition, a theory. Would you want Philip Morris showing up at your kids school, passing out packs of Kools and telling kids, “There’s no proof cigarettes are harmful. Hey, here’s a “scientist” that will tell you its perfectly safe” ?
Bugboy
@Defense Guy:
What, you saying I now claim to be psychic? Get real, I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out: I’ve been told by the people without an education that they believe I am treating them in an inferior manner. I do not; I consider doing so akin to racism. Is that clear enough for you?
As for theocracy and sliding enlightenment, if you have to ask for proof you MUST have bought the Bush, Inc. sales pitch, hook line and sinker. See above commment about idiots.
Defense Guy
Just as progress is starting to be made differentiating evolution from abiogenesis, we have setbacks. You cannot just jump back and forth between the two as if they are interchangeable.
BugBoy
I’m glad you don’t consider yourself elitist, however even if you capitalize it the simple fact that you believe something is not in itself proof that you are correct and claims of superior intelligence (ie comment about idiots) are often false. Of course, you still could indicate with facts why I am being so clearly gullible. Perhaps you think I’m in it, since I believe in G-d and all.
tBone
DG – I’m with you so far. But I’m trying to figure out your objection to exposing students to the idea of abiogenesis, at least in advanced biology classes (which is where it belongs).
If the teacher presented the basic concepts while making it clear that there’s still a lot to learn in this area (and some things that may never be known), would you still object?
I think we’re pretty close to agreement, just trying to bridge that last gap. :)
I LOVE A PARTY
ANYONE GOT TICKETS TO THE SEPT 11 CONCERT AND CELEBRATION PUT ON BY THE GOP IN NEW YORK?
WOULD LOVE TO GO AND PARTY………….ALL NIGHT LONG!!!!!!!!
Defense Guy
tBone
I have no objection to it. I do not see a problem with exposing future scientific minds with the concepts man is currently studying. There is nothing wrong with stating that some are studying this as a possible source of life on earth.
The line I draw is very simple, and it is that you may not state ‘this is how life started here on earth’. I think that question is still one stuck in the philosophies. Science may ultimately answer it, but then again it may not.
tBone
OK then. We’re in full agreement.
I sort of feel like we should start a vicious flame war now, just so we don’t mess up the Internet with the positive vibes.
Defense Guy
I wouldn’t sweat it. The agreements never get the publicity. I’m sure we can disagree in the future, perhaps even vicously so.
Adam
Perhaps, instead of creating an entire philosophy program in our schools, we should focus on teaching children what they need to keep this nation afloat.
I don’t know if anyone is paying attention, but we are losing. Public education needs attention, increased funding, and increased expectations. It does NOT need students being hijacked by some notion that we might all be here because some “intelligent being” designed us all.
Unless we all want to be speaking another language (mandarin or hindi) in the future, pay attention now.
George
goonie bird said: “we came from intelligent design and we sure did,nt come from a ape and no fish ever had legs becuase liegs look silly on a fish”.
I think this person (goonie bird) is just the example that can be used to deflate and destroy this ID thing. And it is a “thing” – it is not a science, and never will be: it belongs in the realm of mythology and make-believe, like religion and Fairy Tales.
goonie bird writes so badly, with such bad English, with such poor attention to grammar and sentence structure that he/she must be one of those unfortunate individuals who can be taken in by the lie and myth of ID because he/she doesn’t have the intelligence to make a reasoned judgement.
As the saying goes, religion and ID and all that other mythological stuff is for the masses – because the masses don’t have the intelligence to think for themsleves.
ID is not a science, it is pseudo-scientific (i.e. “pretend” science) mumbo-jumbo, and any damn politician, whatever their rank, who supports ID is showing themsleves for the unitelligent reptilian that they are. To support ID means that you cannot think for yourself, and that you cannot reason, and because of this you are stupid with a very low IQ.
John Langford
Evolution theory has been around for 150 years and has more holes in it all the time. Jesus has been saving for 2000 years and still saves today.
Shygetz
John Langford Says:
Evolution theory has been around for 150 years and has more holes in it all the time. Jesus has been saving for 2000 years and still saves today.
Huh? Evolution has fewer holes now than it did when it first came out (which is why it is now accepted as a scientific theory, as opposed to Lamarkianism). Jesus is completely unrelated to evolution, as are any other dieties one may choose to believe in. Whether or not “Jesus saves” is not germane to the topic.
Utah Blogger
Sen. Butters is despicable and should resign. Is he really as dumb as he wants the voters to believe? Butters is racist and he knows it. This man has no character and really feels that he is all-powerful.
The delegates of Senate District 10 almost sent him packing at the Salt Lake County Republican Party convention. Ozwald Balfour should have known better when he helped Butters to win by one vote to avoid a primary. Butters would have suffered the same faith as Mark Walker. He would have been beaten soundly in the primary.
He may be able to win his seat in November but his legacy will remain his racist Black Baby comment along with all the others he is likely to make over the next four years.