1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by ScottY, Nov 22, 2005.

  1. LaughingMan

    LaughingMan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    1,386
    2
    0
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    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.
     
  2. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    466
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    the judge called it 'breathtaking inanity.'

    i agree 100%.

    sigh of relief.
     
  3. LaughingMan

    LaughingMan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    1,386
    2
    0
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    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.
     
  4. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    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.
     
  5. bookrats

    bookrats New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    2,843
    2
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  6. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    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.
     
  7. Schmika

    Schmika New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    1,617
    2
    0
    Location:
    Xenia, OH
    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....
     
  8. brandon

    brandon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    771
    9
    0
    Location:
    Manhattan, KS
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Schmika, sounds like you have a definite position on this issue...

    :)
     
  9. Kiloran

    Kiloran New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    1,225
    3
    0
    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.
     
  10. jeneric

    jeneric New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    442
    1
    0
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    Um, I thought we didn't want schools teaching beliefs, whether or not they are "reality."
     
  11. LaughingMan

    LaughingMan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    1,386
    2
    0
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    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.
     
  12. jeneric

    jeneric New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    442
    1
    0
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    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.]
     
  13. LaughingMan

    LaughingMan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    1,386
    2
    0
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    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.
     
  14. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    466
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    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.
     
  15. ScottY

    ScottY New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    1,250
    7
    0
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    U.S. judge rejects intelligent design

    By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY Wed Dec 21, 6:50 AM ET

    A federal judge dealt a major setback Tuesday to backers of the idea that some forms of life are so complex that they must be the product of an intelligent designer. Judge John Jones ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach the concept in public school science classes because it is "a religious view."

    The case, the first court test of intelligent design, or ID, was the latest in a series of challenges to evolution that go back to the 1925 Scopes trial, when a Tennessee high school science teacher was convicted of teaching Darwin's theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

    Jones' ruling is not binding outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania, but attorneys and outside experts say it will have broad impact on judges, lawyers and school boards. (Related item: 'ID' ruling traces idea's problems, town's divisions)

    "ID is an interesting theological argument, but ... it is not science," Jones wrote in a 139-page ruling. "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution."

    Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago, cited Supreme Court rulings that teaching creationism - which holds that God created all life - violates the First Amendment wall between church and state. He said evidence at trial established that intelligent design is "a mere re-labeling of creationism."

    Intelligent design theory does not answer the question of who or what is the designer. Jones said "no serious alternative to God as the designer" has been proposed by ID proponents.

    Local parents sued the Dover, Pa., school board after the board required that ninth-grade biology students be read a statement critical of evolution. It suggested ID as an alternative and pointed students to a pro-ID book, Of Pandas and People. Jones found that several board members made clear they wanted to introduce religious content. He said they "testified inconsistently or lied outright under oath on several occasions" in trying to disguise their intent.

    Jones admonished the board for dragging Dover residents "into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." Eight of the board members who adopted the policy were on the ballot last month, and all eight lost. The new school board members have said they do not support the policy, so the case probably will go no further.

    The school board members were represented by chief counsel Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. He called the decision a "troubling" display of censorship and predicted "it will be ignored" by other judges.

    Eric Rothschild, an attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

    Richard Katskee, also part of the winning legal team, called the decision "a cautionary tale" for school officials elsewhere. Another team member, Steve Harvey, said it affirms that officials "should not use public office to impose their personal religious views on others."

    Doug Laycock, a church-state expert at the University of Texas law school, said Jones based his decision on 21 days of testimony. "This is going to be enormously persuasive to other judges and lawyers as a prediction of what would happen if they slogged through the whole 21 days all over again," he said.

    The case was the latest chapter in a debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the Scopes trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law against teaching evolution.

    Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether a suburban Atlanta school district had the right to put stickers on biology textbooks describing evolution as a theory, not fact. A federal judge last January ordered the stickers removed.

    In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

    President Bush also weighed in on the issue of intelligent design recently, saying schools should present the concept when teaching about the origins of life.

    In his ruling, Jones said intelligent design "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"; it relies on "flawed and illogical" arguments; and its attacks on evolution "have been refuted by the scientific community."

    The judge also said: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

    Former school board member William Buckingham, who advanced the policy, said from his new home in Mount Airy, N.C., that he still feels the board did the right thing.

    "I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state," he told The Associated Press. "We didn't lose; we were robbed."

    In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/usjudgere...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

    Should I say... yay!!!
     
  16. Kiloran

    Kiloran New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    1,225
    3
    0
    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. <_<
     
  17. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    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?
     
  18. Schmika

    Schmika New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    1,617
    2
    0
    Location:
    Xenia, OH
    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.
     
  19. LaughingMan

    LaughingMan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    1,386
    2
    0
    Location:
    Marlborough, MA
    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.
     
  20. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    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.