The Kansas Board of Education has approved the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools. Next the board will turn their attention to considering a curriculum recommendation from the "Flat Earth Society."
#1 New York Times Bestselling Author & TV Producer
The Kansas Board of Education has approved the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools. Next the board will turn their attention to considering a curriculum recommendation from the "Flat Earth Society."
Sometimes I despair of the idiocy of people. Intelligent design, bizarre woffle by people who don’t want to understand the meaning of the words ‘scientific theory’.
You might note that Kansas showed a bit of intelligence yesterday and voted out some of these fools. This is a subject that can get me riled, since evolution and “intelligent design” are not necessarily contradictory, but one is a scientific theory with factual evidence that can be tested and the other cannot. Why it’s so hard for some people to believe that a higher power might actually have set these things in motion is beyond me. “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies” and all that good shit. I don’t assume to understand the mind of god, etc.
Best,
Mark Terry
When I first heard the phrase, “Intelligent Design”, I thought it was referencing the idea that a higher power created life with ability to evolve.
I can’t believe this debate is going on in 2005.
Every time I worry that Ohio has become a back water (I do live in Cincinnati, after all), I just look at Kansas and tell myself, “There, but for the grace of God…”
Which, considering we’re talking about Kansas here, is pretty ironic.
Don’t ask me the guy’s name. He’s a Vatican cardinal and his hat isn’t as tall as the Pope’s. He’s some kind of spokesman for the Church on intellectual matters (there is that side of the Church, the Jesuitical) and he told reporters gathered for an interview that there is “evidence that Darnwinism is much more than a theory” and that there are many examples of its efficacy. On the other hand, he said, none of the other theories are anything more than that and he said that there is “no reason that science and religion can’t co-exist,” one honoring the other. (I actually agree with that. Even the Big Bang theory can accomodate a deity/intelligence/system without damaging the purity of the theory (now I believe back in fashion). He warned specifically against “fundamentalism” (his word) usurping science. I’m assuming Pope Benny approved this, otherwise this Cardinal would never have said it. My long-winded point here is that if the Catholic Church is (apparently) championing Darwinism, I’d think the other churches with nut-job elements would do likewise. I went to Catholic school and the other night I e mailed several of my old friends from there–we’re all in our sixties–and as far as five of us can remember, in science class we were always taught Darwinism and never the Biblical version of creation. This Kansas ruling is shameful. This very petite, very pretty little fifty-something woman took the microphone after the meeting. She looked so smart, in all senses of the word, I figured he had to on the Darwin side. But then she started speaking and she was this crazed Creatonist smiting the Darwinian Devils. That woman has no right to be so pretty and smart-looking and belong to the other side. Shame on her.
Unintelligent Denial, anyone?
“Why it’s so hard for some people to believe that a higher power might actually have set these things in motion is beyond me.”
I actually have the opposite reaction – I don’t understand why it’s so hard for some people to believe that a higher power didn’t actually set these things in motion, that there is no higher power. But that’s me.
To teach ID in public schools violates our constitution, the separation of church and state – ID is creationism and therefore it shouldn’t be taught, because our government and schools cannot champion one philosophy over another. Athiesm is a religious freedom allowed to us in this country and by teaching ID we are robbing people who choose that philosophy of that religious freedom.
Well that was pretty much my take on it in a post I entered yesterday. It’s discouraging and even moreso the Pat Roberts investigation for truth in policy matters. Or the heel-dragging lack thereof. That’s scary because these people wouldn’t know truth if it hit them in the head after falling out of the sky.
I don’t know why folks have to create this deity to justify themselves. There isn’t a lick of evidence for it and it remains invisible. Taking that and whipping it into a reality is just another ad Ignorantiam. Come to think of it that’s what they did with the war evidence, the less they found the greater the danger became. It’s fiction.
Correct my political comment, though double-check it if you really give a damn. I was in the car listening to NPR and apparently Kansas kept their doofuses in office, but Pennsylvania tossed their 8 intelligent design folks out.
Or how about: Intelligence Decline?
I think Kilgore Trout explained the genesis of humanity quite well in his stunning science-fiction epic, Venus on the Half-Shell. Just saying, is all.
The fact that people make such a big deal over this “debate” — on one side or the other — is what strikes me a foolish. Considering all the crap that’s taught in schools today, and all that isn’t taught and should be, this hardly seems worth getting excited over.
We have schools that graduate students that can barely read, have next to no knowledge of mathematics, and are nearly completely ignorant of this country’s history — and we’re worried that someone might be teaching them that the universe was created by an intelligent being?
As usual, the real problems are being ignored while we concentrate on sexy, hot button issues that are ultimately meaningless.
It seems Toto that we ARE in Kansas, after all. Must go, I’m supposed to redefine Eucleadian Geometry before lunch.
Oops. EUCLIDian geometry. No matter. I’m redefining spelling after dinner.
Off to get another Starbucks.
David,
I’m with you on this one 100%
Richard.
It may be a hot-button topic, but you gotta start somewhere; and creationism (a) has no place in a science class, except as an example of how millions of people have no critical thinking skills, and (b) is as useless an explanation of the world around us as it’s possible to come up with.
But it’s nice when something goes right for a change.
David, I agree this is sexy and hot-botton. But it’s not meaningless. Science education is problematic enough without science teachers being told to teach religion rather than science. Public education already makes a lot of compromises, but I at least am not ready to say “Okay, we don’t care if kids know biology…or geology…or chemistry…but we draw the line at reading. These kids are gonna read! Except Steinbeck, he’s right out.”
Amen, Keith and David – wait a minute, what did I just say?
It’s about the hyjacking of science education by zealots. It’s a giant step backward and dangerous for the future of the country. This stuff belongs in a humanities class not science.
I worked with someone who thought dinosaurs were satan’s creations because their age didn’t correspond with his ‘beliefs’. Needless to say, I backed away from him slowly.
So he thought Satan predated God?
Re: Ed Gorman’s comment- the Catholic church accepted the possiblity of evolution about forty years ago, as part of Vatican II (I don’t know if they’re fur it, but at least they ain’t agin it).
Now, some ranting: A big problem I have here is people calling evolution a “theory”- it’s not. Natural selection is a theory, or guided development, or intelligent design, or whatever, but evolution- organisms changing over time- is an observed fact. It can be seen in the fossil record, in nature and, in a more limited form, in the laboratory. If these people are willing to let the teachers teach the facts and leave out all the theories, then we might be getting somewhere. Can posting this here have any effect on the real world? Of course not. But I feel better now.
I have promised Lee I will stay out of political debates on his blog, so this will be a drive-by. (I’m not quite as good as I promised to be.)
Point number one. Joshua said Athiesm is a religious freedom allowed to us in this country and by teaching ID we are robbing people who choose that philosophy of that religious freedom.
Have you studied Athiesm? Evolution is one of it’s major tenants. We are already teaching religion in the science classroom. Just not a religion with any Judeo-Christian background.
Point number two. Keith said creationism has no place in a science class, except as an example of how millions of people have no critical thinking skills
Thanks. I’ll remember this next time I go to read one of you books.
And name calling like that is exactly why I will stay away from this from now on.
Mark
You know a discussion has degenerated, perhaps beyond repair, when we start arguing semantics, but what the hell… It is a forum dominated by writers. 🙂
Daisy is wrong when she writes that evolution is not a theory. This is a common misperception regarding the meaning of the word “theory” when used in a scientific context.
As Stephen Jay Gould once argued (and surely there was no more tireless defender of evolution than he), “evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.” (If you follow the link, you’ll see he had some interesting things to say on the subject.)
So, while I understand the point she’s trying to make, manipulating the language towards her own ends is just the kind of thing the ID backers are guilty of.
I have this noted on my own blog, but there was a great story in the New Yorker a few months ago about the science in ID and the science that drives evolution. It’s pretty fascinating: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
I’m rooting for these guys:
http://www.venganza.org/
Naysayers will no doubt claim my objectivity went out the window the moment I was “touched by his noodly appendage,” however.
David is right. A theory in science is not the same as any cockamamie scheme qualifies. It is indeed a fact, and until, new information chnages it, if ever it remains fact.
“Have you studied Athiesm? Evolution is one of it’s major tenants. We are already teaching religion in the science classroom. Just not a religion with any Judeo-Christian background.”
This fallacious view is typical, I’m afraid, of those who understand very little of how the world really works based on a fiction about how they would like it to. Science is not a religion. It’s a testable system of observing the world. In short it’s reality but it can’t compete with negative affirmation. That takes blind belief and closed eyes.
Like the beleivers atheists have the ultimate answer to a question science and evolution does not attempt to answer.
“Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor).”
SJ Gould
And name calling like that is exactly why I will stay away from this from now on.
It’s not name-calling. Creationism is part of faith, and as such, it has a place in life. I think it’s obviously wrong, but that’s what faith is: Belief in the not-rational.
It has value. Faith, by definition, is not logical. There is no scientific basis for it; if there were, it wouldn’t be faith.
Both are valuable. That doesn’t mean creationism has the slightest valid place in a science class. It has zero value (except political value) in that context. It does not in the slightest illuminate the study of biology. It merely asserts–without any evidence whatsoever–who caused biology to happen in the first place. But even if you accept that there is a God, and that he caused all the things you’re studying in this class, how does that in the slightest have any bearing on even the minutest of details in your biology text?
It doesn’t. Science doesn’t address why. It only addresses what and how. Why is the purview of faith.
Beliefs that have absolutely no basis besides religion have a place in religious studies classes, or in church. They have absolutely nothing to do with what’s taught in a science class, and the attempt to force them in for no better reason than personal religious conviction should not be tolerated by those who understand and respect what science and critical thinking are.
Let’s force church leaders to tell their congregations at the start of every sermon that creationism might be wrong. Let’s mandate it. Let’s make sure we can punish them if they don’t.
As a scientific researcher, I take exception to the statement that I’m “manipulating the language towards [my] own ends”, though perhaps I could have been clearer. The point I was trying to make is that there is a set of observed facts- that populations of living organisms change over time- that is described by the word “evolution”. That doesn’t imply any mechanism of action for these changes; it could be natural selection, or acts of God, or an elaborate prank being carried out by aliens. Since the theory of natural selection is so widely accepted it is often treated as synonymous with evolution, hence, I suspect, the confusion. All I was trying to say is that, by characterizing evolution as the theory, rather than natural selection, this movement is trying to prevent even provable facts from being taught.
Have you studied Athiesm? Evolution is one of it’s major tenants.
Um, not really.
We are already teaching religion in the science classroom.
Evolution is not a religion, if that’s what you’re implying. Neither is athiesm.
Whether you belive in evolution or ID – or a combination of both – I’ve just got one thought to bring up-and that is -‘it’ didn’t happen all by itself. Someone or something set it in motion. So go ahead and take your potshots at me. It’s been that kind of day, and I’m ready. Or, just think about it.
… ‘it’ didn’t happen all by itself. Someone or something set it in motion. So go ahead and take your potshots at me.
No potshots.
But that falls outside the purview of evolution and the teaching of evolution. That’s not a science question and should not be taught in science classes.
I did, in a sense perhaps, mischaracterize Athiesm by calling it a religion – it’s not necessarly an organized religion – it is, however, a possible religious choice could make – Athiesm is certainly something a person can have faith in – you can also have faith that the world was created by Santa Claus or you can have faith in nothing and be proud of it – people can have faith in many things, the Great Pumpkin, Satan, the volcano god – doesn’t matter, they use these stories to explain things that, at this point, cannot be suitably explained. It’s still faith, organized or not.
Athiests have faith that there is nothing in the afterlife just like fundelmentalists have faith that there is something in the afterlife. Atheists have faith that there is nothing more than what is here now.
My point was that by supporting one view in schools, creationism (which is what ID is) you rob people who choose to place there faith in something else, be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism or Santa Claus (by the way, there is exact same amount of evidence supporting the theory that Santa created the universe as there is that god did – none) – by championing one, you take away the others, which is against our constitution. Separation of church and state. By not teaching any religion, you don’t endorse athiesm, you don’t endorse anything – you let people decide on their own time.
And the idea that evolution is a major tenent of atheism is incredibly misinformed – evolution is a theory of science – detailing observable phenom – it doesn’t speak of afterlife.
Somone can be an athiest without acception evolution. Really Carstairs, if you’re going to drop misinformed, illogical and willfully ignorant facts like that, the very least you could do is stick around and clean up the mess you made. Otherwise, why even bother to chime in?
Athiests have faith that there is nothing in the afterlife just like fundelmentalists have faith that there is something in the afterlife. Atheists have faith that there is nothing more than what is here now.
This shows a profound misunderstanding of the terms “atheism” and “faith.”
Come on, Harry, you can’t have faith in science, faith in government, faith in Faith Hill’s music? It can only be faith in god, isn’t faith in satan still faith? Faith in Allah is still faith, right? Why not faith in nothing?
How is faith in god different from faith in atheism? You believe something is true, either based on observable fact or one an inner voice or what your folks told or all the above – it’s what a person profounding believes, right or wrong – I’m not talking about the end product of the faith, be it yaweh or allah or god, but the act of making a belief choice.
How is the choice an atheist makes to believe in non-god different from the choice a christian makes to believe in god? Are they not equal choices?
How is the choice an atheist makes to believe in non-god different from the choice a christian makes to believe in god? Are they not equal choices?
No, they are not equal choices; each includes a measure of acceptance of what can’t be proven, but their natures are different. One is a conclusion drawn from a lack of evidence; the other is an acceptance of received wisdom. So they’re not the same thing. However, they are both accurately described as “faith” because the word has several senses.
That’s what makes your point semantic: It exists because there are two different senses of a single word, not because two things are actually the same.
I also want to apologize to Mark Carstairs for having offended him. I think religion is, in general, one of the worst things humanity has ever done to itself, but that doesn’t translate as de facto disrespect for anybody who’s religious.
My comment about people having no critical thinking skills because they believe in Creationism was probably a little sharper than it needed to be, just because of my feelings about the issue. Obviously, some people who believe do have critical thinking skills, and some don’t.
Creationism itself is impossible for me to take seriously because nothing differentiates it from the thousands of creation stories that preceded it–or, I assume, from the thousands that will follow it. It’s a story. If you believe in it, that’s your right, just as it’s my right to believe that there may be a guiding intelligence behind the universe–or that there’s not.
But neither statement of faith belongs in a classroom. I don’t want my children told there’s no God by a science teacher–and I don’t want them told there is. It’s none of the science teacher’s business either way. Teach science and shut up.
This is how Darwin’s “theory” of evolution has evolved. The “fact” is, in the 146 years since Darwin postulated his “theory” no evidence has ever been found that shows ANY detectable “evolution” of a single species throughout the ages.
That’s kind of a major flaw in the theory. So what to do? Well people have tried to amend the theory to fit the facts as they understand them by “theorizing” that sepecies did not “evolve” smoothly and pregressively as Darwin had claimed, but they made a sudden jump within a short amount of time. They don’t have any “proof” of that, but they can’t explain why the fossil record doesn’t support the theory of evolution, and hey, that sort of explains it.
(Ain’t it great to be able to change tack just like that.)
So all the people on this blog who don’t seem to understand what a “theory” is, let me put it this way… Christian’s have a “theory” that Christ is the Son of God, and that if you believe in him, upon your death your will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I have no idea whether this is true or not. And I can’t say I’m a believer… But there are actual written accounts from the period from real live people who really did exist and they have testified that Christ rose from the dead, then ascended in to heaven.
And that’s more than you can say about Darwin’s Origin of the Species covering that past few billion years.
Also… actual scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe and that we are about to enter a new ice-age (1977), so anyone who bases their faith on what a scientist says at any particular moment, is about as dumb as it gets
Is that so Jack? We can observe evolution taking place in bacteria easily so bring out the hook right there. The fossil record fallacy is a standard propagandist naysayer technique. Because a couple of minor details can’t be explained, by gaps in the record, doesn’t mean the preopnderance of evidence gets thrown out and a great and powerful OZ gets the credit and we all go have a happy fizzies party.
Give me a break. Rumors reported in the Bible are just that. No one saw Christ rise and laws didn’t fall out of the sky to Moses. It’s metaphorical. As for Carstairs and is ilk, I only feel sorry for him. They throw missles at reality that only make themselves look foolish to the thinking world. Incapability to learn should not be respected nor celebrated.
That’s my point, Keith – even with two people who believe in god, it’s unlikely that their faith in is equal value, depending on the person, there’s no real way to measure faith, anymore than we can measure love . . . but what people believe, much like they love, is something we observe. Who’s to say one man’s wife is better than another man’s, if they both love their wives? Or a homosexual’s love for their partner? Or love for a family member or for a pet, even?
The thing is, we look at the end product (and we should, cause some folks believe and love them some messed up stuf) as the measuring stick for faith, when it’s really more of a measuring stick for, as you pointed out, reason and judgement, not faith – the religious folk state on a consistant basis that people like you and I (who believe christianity is silly) are without faith.
I say that we have faith, we are just more prudent where we put it.
But in terms of actually having the ability to believe, just like we have the ability to love, we are no different than the fundalmentalists. Just more prudent.
Well people have tried to amend the theory to fit the facts as they understand them…
Wow, imagine that. Scientists changing their views based on facts. What a crazy, crazy world we live in!
It makes much more sense to keep on believing whatever you want despite the facts, does it? I guess that would explain why we still have creationists.
Thanks Harry, for the ‘no pot shots’. I should have explained why ‘it had been a day’-one of my cats decided he’d rather sharpen his claws on the new grass cloth we’d just had put up-instead of his scratch post. Just wanted to clear that up-in case anyone cared. 🙂
Elaine, that’s why I don’t allow roof rabbits in my house. blech.
Joshua, Atheism requires no faith. In fact, that’s the point. Faith is a belief that something exists even when the evidence is non-existent or spotty. Lacking conclusive evidence, people believe and unsupported conclusion through their faith.
Atheists do not say “My faith tells me its true, no matter what the evidence.” They say “No evidence, no reason to believe.” [1] Faith is not only unnecessary, it’s contraindicated.
Jack Bauer, rather than point out how you have born false witness against your fellow man by repeating falsehoods about science, let me direct others to http://www.faqs.org/faqs/talk-origins/archive/part1/, part one of the FAQ that addresses many of the ill-informed objections to evolution. Note, Jack, that I said “others,” since I doubt you’d trouble yourself to question the beliefs you hold dear.
For instance:
Also… actual scientists used to believe the earth was flat,
No they didn’t. Educated people knew the world was round back in the time of the ancient Greeks, well before the birth of science.
and that we are about to enter a new ice-age (1977)
Also untrue, as 2 minutes on Google would have told you.
I forgot my
[1] Yes, it’s a generalization, but a useful one.
Well-spoke, Harry, but still I maintain that a person can have just as much faith in the known as they can in the unknown.
“I have no idea whether this is true or not. And I can’t say I’m a believer… But there are actual written accounts from the period from real live people who really did exist and they have testified that Christ rose from the dead, then ascended in to heaven.”
Huh? As far as I know there are absolutely no still existing parchments or papyri or anything that could be studied today with contemporaries’ eye-witness reports of the actual events.
kete
The writings of Josephus mention Jesus, and supposedly mention that he died and rose from the dead. The historical consensus is that parts of the Testimonium Flavianum were altered in later years by Christians.
“Josephus ben Matthias is the best known ancient Jewish historian. He was born in 37 CE, only a few years after Jesus’ execution.”
Exactly what I thought/said. As far as I know all reports from that time are by people born AFTER the events they describe. So, while their tales may be interesting, they don’t prove a thing, being just hearsay.
kete