The Threat From Intelligent Design

[Hobbit]

http://www.glennbeck.com/al/index.shtml

The Threat From Intelligent Design
By Al Ruechel | 01-24-06

I loved Mr. Madson’s Biology class. He was a first rate teacher passionate about science and the scientific method and the pursuit of truth. He was also a good church-going man and a role model for many students who wanted to be scientists. I was one of those.

Back in 1969 no one had even heard of something called Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity. What was made very plain to us over and over again was that evolution, as a mechanism to explain the state of the world today, was a theory, not a law. You could “test” some of its basic premises and observe its genesis through bones and tissue and the fossil record. But until scientists are able to create life in some primordial slug-pit triggered by flashes of lightning Darwin’s observations were simply that, one explanation of how man may have begun his existence from a collection of amino acids and carbon particles and changed and adapted to new surrounds.

Mr. Madson was always careful to point out that evolution within a given species was a fact, but evolution between species was still replete with holes large enough to drive a universe through. Which is why we always spent several days talking about alternative theories for the existence of life on Earth. We talked about God, aliens, and other religious perspectives. We talked about those missing links. We always came back to the theory of evolution and talked about why it appears as the most logical explanation. Yet, Mr. Madson would lecture us over and over again: if you set a theory in stone that can never be completely proven you are effectively discounting that part of the brain that separates us from the rest of the animal world; the power to imagine and question.

I kept my old Biology book, written in 1968, and went through it last night. I was pleasantly surprised it had one whole chapter dedicated to alternative theories to evolution. I don’t remember anyone protesting that book or demanding it be banned for even mentioning, in an intellectually honest fashion, the possibility that there could be other explanations for the origins of mankind.

Fast forward to 2006. The state of Florida has approved a science textbook called: Biology: The Dynamics of Life. Some teachers and editorial boards on newspapers want the book banned because under the heading “The Origin of Life” it contains two paragraphs on the belief that a supreme being created life. It goes on to mention that cultures throughout history have had their own religious explanations for the origins of life. Gee, it reads just like my old biology book! It also tosses in a quick reference to intelligent design. Here’s the biggest sin. It suggests the class engage in a debate on the origins of life. Discussion? Free speech? Opposing viewpoints? I can think of nothing more tragic then open-minded discussion. I hear its been banned on high school and college campuses of late. And what if the theory of evolution isn’t able to stand up to the ramblings of mere high school students? Where is Charles Darwin when you need him? “This kind of discussion will only breed confusion,” says a local newspaper editorial (St. Pete Times, Monday, Jan 23, 2006).

Confusion? Who is confused here? You don’t think high school students are capable of handling religious explanations of evolution? You don’t think they understand putting a gag order on speech and thought just because it happens to have a religious tone?

Here’s my take. The fear from many members of the academic community is that new scientific explanations of the holes in Darwin are gaining ground among more in the scientific community itself. Even some professors and researchers who have spent their entire lives studying evolution have reversed course or are at least question their initial assumptions.

Dr. Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, continues to send shock waves through academia with its thoughtful dissection of the biochemical challenges to evolution. He rules out evolutionary process as the only answer because, biochemically, they are: "irreducibly complex," meaning that if they are missing just one of their many parts, they cannot function, therefore cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion. Why not? Because natural selection works on small mutations in just one component at a time. If dozens or even hundreds of distinct proteins, precisely fashioned, are required to make a functional cilium, how could natural selection slowly and patiently craft them, one at a time, while waiting for the complex function of ciliary movement to emerge?” You need to read this book. I can’t do it justice in none paragraph.

In the end it is not important whether Behe and a growing list of scientists continue expanding their scientific research on Intelligent Design. For all I know, they could be wrong. At least they are open enough to examine other explanations for things we do not fully understand. I thought that’s what scientists were supposed to do? Since when is science afraid of the unknown?

You can label those scientists who support Intelligent Design religious zealots if you wish. But at least they are being intellectual honest by admitting evolution’s flaws and offering other explanations for consideration. Would that be a crime or unconstitutional? And does two paragraphs in a 700-page textbook equal government support of religion? Please????

Intelligent Design supporters don’t want or need to have it etched in stone wiping out Darwin’s evolutionary matrix. They just want it footnoted in an honest fashion so if today’s young scientist happen to turn the stone over and it says, “made in heaven” they won’t be too shocked!

Al Ruechel, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved

I think he says it better than I do.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Hey, but its really, really REALLY important we keep religion out of our schools so our K-12 students can continue getting the excellent education afforded all of them ever since we started dismissing religion out of schools.

Oh wait, I just checked the stats, our elementary, high school levels of education continue to deteriorate, a pattern that has been in place since educators and politicians have decided to rid the playgrounds of that perverbial boogie man, God.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Excellent article, Hobbit.

 

[liberalogic]

As I've mentioned numerous times, I am a fervent adversary to Intelligent Design in the science classroom. But I will say that that is a great article. It points out that evolution is not definitive and the line that I respect the most is: "Discussion? Free speech? Opposing viewpoints? I can think of nothing more tragic than open-minded discussion."

This is true. I believe that everything that we learn is questionable in one way or another. At the same time, though, I still oppose ID in the science classroom. I was given a link a few weeks ago that was intended to demonstrate the validity of ID as a science, yet after researching, I saw no indication whatsoever to support its premise. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not against ID because of its religious background (though I do believe in separation of church and state), I'm against it because it is untestable. If we had factual evidence from this designer (aka God), then there would be no way for me to refute it as a science. But the fact remains that we don't have that evidence. While evolution is a theory and while it may have its flaws, much of it can be tested and analyzed, which is why it is classified as a science.

I don't oppose ID in a science class to eliminate free-speech or inquiry; I do so because it is not a science and the name of the course that we're talking about is science. I encourage the infiltration of ID in philosophy, theology, culture, etc. types of classes. That is where we should be questioning and proposing theories that don't necessarily need to be tested.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hey, but its really, really REALLY important we keep religion out of our schools so our K912 students can continue getting the excellent education afforded all of them ever since we started dismissing religion out of schools.

Oh wait, I just checked the stats, our elementary, high school levels of education continue to deteriorate, a pattern that has been in place since educators and politicians have decided to rid the playgrounds of that perverbial boogie man, God.

Its important to keep religion out of science class.

ID does not belong is a discussion about science, in any way, shape or form. It has absolutely no value whatsoever as a scientific theory.


At present time there is no scientific alternative to evolution, no competing theory. So there isn't really any alternative viewpoints that need discussing in the context of science.

 

[Annie]

Its important to keep religion out of science class.

ID does not belong is a discussion about science, in any way, shape or form. It has absolutely no value whatsoever as a scientific theory.

That may be true. So is the fact that you are a fuctard.

 

[Annie]

That may be true. So is the fact that you are a fuctard.

My bad, as a mod I'm not supposed to flame. Sorry.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

My bad, as a mod I'm not supposed to flame. Sorry.

 

[Annie]

Not me, asshat!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As I've mentioned numerous times, I am a fervent adversary to Intelligent Design in the science classroom. But I will say that that is a great article. It points out that evolution is not definitive and the line that I respect the most is: "Discussion? Free speech? Opposing viewpoints? I can think of nothing more tragic than open-minded discussion."

This is true. I believe that everything that we learn is questionable in one way or another. At the same time, though, I still oppose ID in the science classroom. I was given a link a few weeks ago that was intended to demonstrate the validity of ID as a science, yet after researching, I saw no indication whatsoever to support its premise. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not against ID because of its religious background (though I do believe in separation of church and state), I'm against it because it is untestable. If we had factual evidence from this designer (aka God), then there would be no way for me to refute it as a science. But the fact remains that we don't have that evidence. While evolution is a theory and while it may have its flaws, much of it can be tested and analyzed, which is why it is classified as a science.

I don't oppose ID in a science class to eliminate free-speech or inquiry; I do so because it is not a science and the name of the course that we're talking about is science. I encourage the infiltration of ID in philosophy, theology, culture, etc. types of classes. That is where we should be questioning and proposing theories that don't necessarily need to be tested.

And yet in a small school district ourside of Sacramento, Ca., they offered an elective philosophy class on ID, whereas the ACLU threatened to sue them to remove it. The school district would have bankrupted themselves fighting the ACLU in court, so they capitulated. Yep, that ever vigilant fighter for freedom, the ACLU wins again.

 

[MissileMan]

And yet in a small school district ourside of Sacramento, Ca., they offered an elective philosophy class on ID, whereas the ACLU threatened to sue them to remove it. The school district would have bankrupted themselves fighting the ACLU in court, so they capitulated. Yep, that ever vigilant fighter for freedom, the ACLU wins again.

I'd like to read the details of that. Can you provide a link please?

 

[Annie]

I'd like to read the details of that. Can you provide a link please?

This sounds like it?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10893272/

California intelligent-design spat settled
Rural school district agrees to cancel high-school philosophy class
Image: Frazier Mountain High School
A school bus leaves Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, Calif.. where a "Philosophy of Design" class had addressed a religion-based alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.
View related photos
Niklas Larsson / AP
Updated: 4:21 p.m. ET Jan. 17, 2006

FRESNO, Calif. - Under legal pressure, a rural school district Tuesday canceled an elective philosophy course on “intelligent design.”

A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school system last week, accusing it of violating the constitutional separation of church and state with “Philosophy of Design,” a high-school course taught by a minister’s wife that advanced the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by some kind of higher intelligence.

In a settlement, the district agreed to halt the course at Frazier Mountain High School next week and said it would never again offer a “course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science or intelligent design.”
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class,” said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the parents.

In a landmark lawsuit, Americans United successfully blocked the Dover, Pa., school system last month from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.

However, some activists contended that Jones’ ruling opened the door to teaching intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes.

The settlement in the El Tejon school district was announced just before a federal judge was scheduled to hold a hearing on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.

All five of the cash-strapped district’s trustees voted to settle the potentially expensive case, said Pete Carton, the district’s attorney. The class started Jan. 3 with 15 students.

El Tejon Superintendent John Wight said the subject was proper for a philosophy class. But Americans United argued the course relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones.

RELATED STORIES

* Federal judge rules against ‘intelligent design’
* Kansas education board downplays evolution

The high school in the Tehachapi Mountains, about 75 miles (120 kilometers) north of Los Angeles, draws 500 students from a dozen small communities.

Sharon Lemburg, a social studies teacher and soccer coach who taught “Philosophy of Design,” defended the course in a letter to the weekly Mountain Enterprise. “I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach,” she wrote.

Similar battles over intelligent design are being fought in Georgia and Kansas.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Its important to keep religion out of science class.

ID does not belong is a discussion about science, in any way, shape or form. It has absolutely no value whatsoever as a scientific theory.


At present time there is no scientific alternative to evolution, no competing theory. So there isn't really any alternative viewpoints that need discussing in the context of science.

Ahhh, the old, we dont have any better idea, so we will just pretend we know what we are talking about and teach evolution as fact.

Fact is, evolution is impossible at the stage of the creation of life. Now, using your philosophy, what does that leave us with? ID? Hmmmmmmmm

 

[MissileMan]

This sounds like it?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10893272/

Thanks for the link. I disagree with the decision. It was an elective course. If there were students signing up for it voluntarily, I don't see the grounds of the lawsuit.

 

[Annie]

Thanks for the link. I disagree with the decision. It was an elective course. If there were students signing up for it voluntarily, I don't see the grounds of the lawsuit.

You're welcome. Seems to me that an elective course within the required humanities offerings is not out of line. ID/creationism is a belief, like buddhism of a substantial number of earth's inhabitants.

 

[MissileMan]

Ahhh, the old, we dont have any better idea, so we will just pretend we know what we are talking about and teach evolution as fact.

It's still called a theory, not fact. It is being treated as the predominant theory because based on available evidence, it makes the most sense.

Fact is, evolution is impossible at the stage of the creation of life. Now, using your philosophy, what does that leave us with? ID? Hmmmmmmmm

What proof can you offer that it's impossible? Hmmmmm?

 

[liberalogic]

I wouldn't be against it being in a philosophy class as I've said before. But a philosophy class is not meant to teach you how to live; it's meant to show you how others think they should live. If "the course relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones" then that is not philosophy and it should not be disguised as such.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're welcome. Seems to me that an elective course within the required humanities offerings is not out of line. ID/creationism is a belief, like buddhism of a substantial number of earth's inhabitants.

Hey, thanks for finding that link.

Yea, the old liberals who are always screaming about freedom of speech and diversity on the educational campuses.

I often dont have links, because I get my info from some very tried and true sources, but they arent print media. To date, I have not been proven wrong on anything I have posted that I have heard from those sources, including Kerry not offering to forgo his tax cuts and donate it to the govt. Ha!, that one got so heated on another board, I got banned. Go figure. Well, it wasnt a political board, but they had an off topic section. They simply couldnt decide if it should remain open to discuss politics and have heated arguements or not

They actually kinda blew it cuz they banned alot of other guys before me. Now the banned members can no longer contribute their info on the particular car line involved.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And yet in a small school district ourside of Sacramento, Ca., they offered an elective philosophy class on ID, whereas the ACLU threatened to sue them to remove it. The school district would have bankrupted themselves fighting the ACLU in court, so they capitulated. Yep, that ever vigilant fighter for freedom, the ACLU wins again.

Freedom to not have my tax dollars spent promoting religion is a freedom I hold dear.


A phiolosophy class whose only purpose is to teach ID is clearly a religious class in disguise. The courts weren't going to be fooled by this BS, that's why the school dropped out. ID being mentioned in a real philosophy class is fine, a real philosophy class being one that covers all important topics in philosophy, and perhaps has a segment on the philosophy of origins, with ID being presented as just ONE idea of many.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Ahhh, the old, we dont have any better idea, so we will just pretend we know what we are talking about and teach evolution as fact.

Evolution is taught as a science. It is a theory supported by massive amounts of factual evidence. It is equally as valid as any other theory supported by massive amounts of factual evidence, from special relativity to thermodynamics.

Fact is, evolution is impossible at the stage of the creation of life.

That's like saying gravity is impossible without matter. DUH. Evolution deals with the evolution of life, obviously, if life isn't around yet, you can't have evolution.