Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

By even listing ID and evolution in the same sentence as equal scientific theories, you do evolution a huge injustice, which is exactly the ID/Creationist tactic.

ID in it's current form is very far away from being a "scientific" theory in any regard. Pull the wool off from over your eyes. ID as a movement is horribly tainted by religious creationists hiding under a secular guise. The court ruling today flat out said that and even went as far as calling several of the ID proponents liars.

ID proponents try to give the impression that ID is a full blown scientific theory, which was easily seen through.

 

the judge called it 'breathtaking inanity.'

i agree 100%.

sigh of relief.

 

Here's a bigger quote from page 137 of his decision. Quoted for teh awesome.

"Activist judges" they'll scream... too bad the judge has already addressed that :lol:. Oh... and he was appointed by Bush 43 back in 2002. How about that.

 

Thankee, galaxee, for pointing that out. That's so often overlooked. The "I know such and such is true" argument is so completely devoid of substance. I got into an argument about that in the barracks one night that went on for an age and day. Of course nothing was resolved but it was a great way to pass several hours.

 

I highly recommend The New Yorker's article about the trial in their Dec. 5th issue, "Darwin in the Dock".

It's a great overview of the trial -- makes me wish I had gotten a chance to attend. "Yet the trial... turned out to be rather like the biology class you wish you could have taken."

Found an on-line copy of the article here.

 

Or repeated 'elsewhen': this was all hashed out in 1925, and earlier than that in Darwin's mind as he struggled to reconcile the differences between his faith and his observations. Unfortunately, this is one of those issues that just won't go away. Until our education system successfully teaches everyone the difference between reality and fantasy, we will continue to suffer fools who think Earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, everything is under control, and we all live forever.

 

I jumped out of this for awhile because I thought it was pointless. "Something" made me pop in today and I see this. Comparing belief in creation to moon's made of green cheese and the world is flat is EXACTLY why both sides will continue bickering. Calling belief in God "fantasy" shows exactly where YOU sit....

 

Schmika, sounds like you have a definite position on this issue...

 

This is a hot button topic but let's all try to be respectful of one another.

While I do not consider ID to be anything like legitimate science, neither do I condone the ridiculing of anyone's religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, ID proponents invite this to an certain extent by forcing this blatently religious proposition into the public debate.

 

Um, I thought we didn't want schools teaching beliefs, whether or not they are "reality."

 

This is correct. Lets be very clear about the language we use here.

Language like "belief" refers to faith. It refers to some sense of spirituality or religion. It has no place in a science classroom. To describe scientific theory, the language "accept" is better. There is no faith involved.

IDers use two separate yet contradictory lines of attack. On one hand, they claim that ID is science, and attempt to give the impression that ID is equal to Evolution as a scientific theory. On the other hand, they also claim that Evolution is a belief system, and that it is "faith" just like religion, and that it competes with Genesis.

They are wrong on both accounts.

There is a very important distinction between "faith" and what evolution involves. Evolution is scentific theory, and under the framework of science, it is accepted as a prevailing idea... it is not "believed."

Science's purpose is not to affect what you "believe" and it is not supposed to replace "faith" in your life. Science is merely the methodology of exploring the world around us.

I think a big problem is that normal people who don't understand science are fooled into thinking that this is somehow a clashing of two belief systems that are mutually exclusive... it is not because Science is NOT a belief system, but the IDers would like you to believe that it's some epic battle instead of two ideas that can coexist.

 

Since you quoted me, I'll take that as a response to me. So do the two statements I quoted have to do with science or with faith?


[edit: changed "I guess that was in" to "I'll take that as" to try to lessen the chances that it is taken as being snotty.]

 

hyo is advocating his own stance that people should let go of the fantasies that we cling to.

It has little to do with science in classrooms... science's primary purpose isn't to make you into a nihilist. Like I said before, science as a whole is a framework to explore the universe.

While my own mantra has always been to avoid fantasy, I have to disagree with hyo that schools need to dispel fantasy...

People should be allowed to believe whatever they wish in this country. That is their freedom. Public schools should neither prevent or encourage a particular belief system.

And of course, i've stated that evolution isn't a belief system. I didn't necessarily mean to respond directly to you ,but just wanted to make sure everybody understood that the language we use to describe this is clear.

 

yes, yes, and YES again.

it seems by and large that ID is trying to portray science as a whole as something that's trying to topple religious belief, and attempting to convince the public to view science as 'the enemy' instead of agreeing that science can still happen in a society of religious people.

that is completely wrong. it's irrelevant to and outside the scope of scientific investigation.

 

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I expect he's been shown many times but refuses to see. <_<

 

My point with the reality/fantasy thing was that we should know how to tell the difference. Education should give us the intellectual tools we need to determine the nature of reality. "How do we know what we know?", "creative and critical thinking", that sort of thing.

How far should freedom go? Are we free to believe in things that are obviously and demonstratably false? Am I free to believe that Earth is flat, as an example, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

 

Not what you would think. Way back in the beginning I mostly was asking what the great FEAR of ID was. I understand that ID probably does not belong in a science class, but I think it does belong IN school.

However, some people think it belongs only in the mionds of demented, crazy people. I don't FEAR these people, why do they FEAR me.

 

It's not so much a matter of fear.

It's a matter of frustration because those of us in the know about science have to deal with such ignorance.

People who treat Evolution as a religion and a belief system in exactly the same vein as Christianity/Creationism/ID are ignorant.

They are ignorant of science's ultimate purpose, and are simply mapping something they are familiar with (faith) onto science blindly.

If there is any fear, it is that this fundamental misunderstanding about science as a faith is perpetuating to high levels of our society and government. Our President is one of these ignorant people who think that Science is a belief system.

 

You can't make people accept facts if they're not inclined to do so. If they want to believe that the earth is flat let 'em. They have to accept responsibilty for their decision and accept the consequences of that choice. On the other hand they should't be allowed to dictate what other people choose to believe.