• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Article on ID

Ed

Philosopher
E
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,658
This appeared in the Wasington Post today:

Who's Afraid of Intelligent Design?

By Jay Mathews
Wednesday, March 23, 2005; Page A15

My favorite high school teacher, Al Ladendorff, conducted his American history class like an extended version of "Meet the Press." Nothing, not even the textbooks other teachers treated as Holy Writ, was safe from attack. I looked forward to that class every day.

My biology class, sadly, was another story. I slogged joylessly through all the phyla and the principles of Darwinism, memorizing as best as I could. It never occurred to me that this class could have been as interesting as history until I recently started to read about "intelligent design," the latest assault on the teaching of evolution in our schools. Many education experts and important scientists say we have to keep this religious-based nonsense out of the classroom. But is that really such a good

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58465-2005Mar22.html
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughs.

I dropped a note to the author:

Dear Mr. Mathews,

I read your essay on ID with interest. I certainly see your point in that in any rational debate ID (and Creationism) proponents would be soundly thrashed. There is one problem, however. ID is not science. It is not a theory, it is a catchall phrase for an anti-rationalist, anti-intellectual neomedieval mindset.

The difficulty is that if one were to seriously discuss this formulation, the discussion would be over when the first question is asked: "is it falseifiable?". If not, then there is really nothing to discuss, any more than if I propounded my own pet loony theory.

The pity is that people who should know better do not seem to understand what Science is. It is not a guess, it is not attempted destruction of an alternative point of view and then claiming a "win".

ID is a religious construct, it violates basic laws of logic and has no grounding in evidence whatsoever. It is not predictive and offers no testable hypotheses. As such it has no place in a science classroom. I will say, however, that students should understand why this is so. As such a rapid deconstruction of ID would serve as a cautionary tale.
Click to expand...

I think that we of a rationalist turn of mind need to go on the record a bit rather than assuming that common sense will prevail.
 
Should we invite neo-nazis in to discuss how the holocaust never occured? Should we invite Al-Q in to give their views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about an open debate with holocaust deniers and Jewish leaders? There used to be a show in the US in the late 80's where the host would bring in neo-nazis with radical jewish folks and verbally abuse the nazis. Sort of like the first Jerry Springer/flame war TV. Is this what we want school to become? Whatever happened to rational, fact based teaching? I find it interesting that he favors discussing this more openly, however I suspect that the majority of american parents would strongly object to any real teaching of science and critical thinking (Ã_ la Karl Popper) as the kids would start to openly question their parents woo beliefs.
 
Intelligent design is a philosophy, not a science, and hence has no place whatsoever in a science curriculum.

I have no problem whatsoever with intelligent design being discussed in a theology class, or a philosophy class. Unfortunately, IDers are too ignorant to know the difference.

- Timothy
 
ID again

there's nary an argument in favour of ID that I've seen that can't be countered by http://www.talkorigins.org/.

this website should be printed and distributed free to every school in the world.
 
From the article:
Amazingly, neither pro- nor anti-intelligent design people like the idea of injecting their squabble into biology classes. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, said that requiring its use in schools would turn their critique of evolution "into a political football." Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education Inc. in Oakland, Calif., said it would distract from proven evolutionary research, crowd out other topics and create confusion.

Some fine biology teachers said the same thing. Sam Clifford in Georgetown, Tex., said that intelligent design is "a piecemeal, haphazard concoction" that he does not have time for. Dan Coast at Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County said that a dissection of intelligent design in his class would be seen by some students as an attack on their religion. They all seemed to be saying that most U.S. high school students and teachers aren't smart enough to handle such an explosive topic. But how do we know if we keep paying expensive lawyers to make sure the experiment is never conducted?
Click to expand...
Once again, here's an illustration of a person who is answering the wrong question. Scientists have not articulated their side well and this is the typical result.

Discovery Institute says they don't want ID's critique of evolution discussed. Intelligent design is xyz. Teachers can't handle such "an explosive topic." "Paying expensive lawyers to make sure the experiment isn't conducted?"

Nonsense! Scientists haven't articulated that the science is and always was open to legitimate debate. Darwinism isn't a theory, evolution is. And, this isn't an explosive topic when properly explained. And no one is "paying expensive lawyers" to keep any legitimate debate out of any science classroom.

That last sentence is the kicker. The impression is legitimate debate is being suppressed. We all know it isn't. We know what is being suppressed is illegitimate debate. But we have failed to make that the question. The question remains controlled by IDers even when being discussed by this declared evolution science supporter.

They answered Gould's favorite question: If you are real scientists, then what evidence would disprove your hypothesis? West indicated that any discovery of precursors of the animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian period 500 million years ago would cast doubt on the thesis that those plans, in defiance of Darwin, evolved without a universal common ancestor.
Click to expand...
And here we have the bad science of ID slipped in as if we are not willing to address the already disproved concept of irreducible complexity. Apparently the author of this article is unaware of the science of genomics, despite the fact it is a well defined and complete compliment, and, key to the theory of evolution.

I am intrigued, however, by the mention of the class on the rhetoric of science and speech.[/quote]
 
It's really necessary to consider, in a high school biology class, how much time is available and how much material can be covered.
It certainly seems appropriate that a brief mention could be made of ID--along with pre-Enlightenment Creationism, Lamarkian inheritance of acquired characteristics, and other ideas that have not withstood the test of research. But to get into a full-blown critique of ID requires more of a background in evolution (to appreciate the misinformation and faulty anti-evolution arguments IDiots present) as well as background on the social, religious, and cultural motivations of ID.
 
I'm constantly trying to keep up to date with the occurences in the states though lack of time and exposure encumbers this.

In Sweden there is rarely talk of creationism, haven't heard it promoted on any public forum by any scientists.
Though I hear about it frequently as I visit american chatrooms/forums or in the news.

It really is a big issue at the moment in the states correct?
 
WhiteLion said:
In Sweden there is rarely talk of creationism, haven't heard it promoted on any public forum by any scientists.
Though I hear about it frequently as I visit american chatrooms/forums or in the news.

It really is a big issue at the moment in the states correct?
Click to expand...

it is when a book, supported by the federal government is sold in the Grand Canyon National Park that claims it was formed by Noah's flood.
read all abaht it...
 
it is when a book, supported by the federal government is sold in the Grand Canyon National Park that claims it was formed by Noah's flood.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link vbloke.
Had heard about the book not long ago on a christian forum, though I didn't take the discussion very seriously, guess it was/is an actual issue none the less.

This is so far away from the matters one encounters in Sweden, the theistic problema that makes at least some noise here is probably the gaymarriage thingy and the adoption of children.
Though Sweden is, from a christian definition, an apostat country.

Saw a site, godhatesfags or something, that had built a monument over the 2000 dead swedes of the tsunami wave, soemthing about the sodomic country being punished by God.
Usually I let these silly things go by, but I wrote several quite upset letters to them, without reply.

The malice often found within self-righteous people can be not only too much for my blood pressure sometimes but also too darn loud for my ears as well.
 
now, I know it's fashionable to knock Americans these days, but I do quite like 'em.
notwithstanding, they do seem to have based their present government on a far right conservative religious movement that is actively seeking to dissuade serious scientific research if it conflicts with their beliefs.
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars/

the Bush administration seems to be actively seeking to reintegrate church and state, something that could actively lead to segregation, intolerance and even crimes against religion being heard in the supreme court.

The poor dears seem to have forgotten that the European settlers that originally founded what we now know as America were Puritans.
 
Yes quite, though from my side the post wasn't motivated by any ill-will toward America/americans.

And yes, I have understood Bush's movement to be of such as well and there is likely going to be, if succesful in its movement, greater intolerance, segregation and an increase of complicated religous-related issues still.

Saw an elderly man on Fox News today, do not remember his name, having a new book out, bringing up the views that negative thinkers, pessimists are often atheists and positive thinkers, optimists are often more likely to be/become believers.

Seems as a typical, slightly prejudice way perhaps, to label atheists as collectively more negative and pessimistic because of the lack of theistic beliefs.

Is this a hot issue over there? Haven't got a real grasp on it yet though.
 
as I have in my signature:

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
 
There was an article in the
Christian Science Monitor March 16 reporting on a conference of right-wing fundies held at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and their "bid to reclaim America." It noted that wannabe Pope-of-America D. James Kennedy is trying to build support around 5 issues: sanctity of life, religious "liberty", pornography, homosexuals, and creation vs. evolution..

It's not just about evolution.
 
I agree.
and since the pilgrim fathers that they're so keen on invoking were puritans, I guess they could also kick out those pesky christians whilst they're at it.
 
I'm not sure how precise my math is... not that great with ratios... but considering scientists estimate the planet is 4,500,000,000 years old, and Creationist believe the planet is 6,000 years old imagine the following conversation:

Christian: It sure is amazing that our planet is over 6,000 years old!

Weirdo: That is a lie! Our planet is only .08 seconds old!

Christian: That's ridiculous. There is a ton of proof that the planet is older than .08 seconds.

Weirdo: Oh, like what?

Christian: Well we have newspapers, history books, photographs, film... the list of proof is endless!

Weirdo: It's all a lie! I have proof. See this book here in my hand? It clearly says on page one that the earth was created .08 seconds ago.

Christian: Well, if your theory is correct then the planet is actually now several seconds old (since we have been chatting here for a bit.)

Weirdo: You're just trying to confuse me with your "science!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom