Louisiana science coalition begs Jindal: Veto the creationism bill
posted at 9:10 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via LGF, showcasing a killer quote from Jindal’s college biology professor, the Louisiana Coalition for Science makes its case. The bill’s been on his desk since yesterday, having passed the state senate 36-0 and the house 94-3. You’ll find the text here, scoured of any references to creationism or intelligent design and mentioning religion only in a heavy-handed section aimed at shielding the bill from the inevitable Establishment Clause challenge. I recommend reading the annotated version instead, but whatever you do, note that the state isn’t compelling every school district to teach ID; they’re leaving it up to each local school board that wants to teach it to request permission to do so. That’s another concession aimed at limiting the scope of the legislation to maximize its chances of surviving a constitutional challenge, although in light of what Jindal had to say about empowering individual school districts on “Face the Nation,” it might be there to make the bill more attractive to him, too.
Given the size of the majorities in both houses, it’s going to pass no matter what he does. Even so, I’m curious to see how he games this politically. If he signs it, he leaves himself open to attack from the left four years from now. If he vetoes it, he pisses off the base. If he does nothing … it becomes law in 20 days, although that would indicate a certain lack of backbone on the hottest of hot button issues. Prediction: He signs it.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next »
Would you object if we submitted your profound comment to the library of Congress? I’m sure generations from now, scholars will be interested in your well-thought-out theory!
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I was just about to say – I think doubleplusundead has the answer on this one.
nailinmyeye on June 17, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I was wondering that also. And from this list I googled, I narrowed it down to two:
AGW Access Gateway
AGW Accident Generated Water
AGW Actual Gold Weight
AGW Actual Gross Weight
AGW All Going Well
AGW Allowable Gross Weight
AGW Alt.Games.Warbirds (forum)
AGW Anganwadi Worker (India)
AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW Application Gateway (telecom)
AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves
AGW Automatic Girth Welder
AGW Autonomous Guided Weapon
AGW Audio Gateway
nottakingsides on June 17, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Yes, I do suppose as most people, although a declining number, still claim to be religious. But at least we are not back when almost everyone was a believer in the invisible and the church ruled back in that period called the Dark Ages.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 10:18 PM
How’d that work out with Newton’s laws?
And the consensus flat-earth theory?
misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 10:18 PM
canopfor do you know where the “whole nine yards” come from?
MB4 on June 17,2008 at 10:08PM.
MB4: Sorta,the movie “The Whole Ten Yards”,it’s similar!
Like the “Back Forty”,No? haha :)
canopfor on June 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Perhaps through observation over several centuries
I’d refer you to this:
Should AGW be taught in schools? It is. Since it is, should ID be taught in schools?
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM
There was this one loon of a professor in the faculty of my major at college. He was constantly getting his hate-Reagan stories in the Washington Post. Were I to run for office, I have no doubt that he’d be brought forward as an “objective” countervoice.
highhopes on June 17, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Yeah, in the Dark Ages they killed thousands of non-believers!
In your wet-dream of modern times, they murder by the 10s of millions.
Progress!
We have you and your ilk to thank, oh enlightened MB4!
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:21 PM
nottakingsides on June 17, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Nice list. I liked this one the best:
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM
For what it’s worth, Christians should just cut their losses and either home school or enroll their kids in private school if they have the means. Might I suggest Classical Christian education. Based on this wonderful woman’s essay. Even if you think Christians are nuts, you will find what she writes as very persuasive.
Weight of Glory on June 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Could you elaborate on which objections you think stifle the free flow of ideas? I’m not trying to pull a gotcha, I’m just interested…
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Exactly, Weight of Glory!
That’s the route we took. Home schooled kids. I hate to be so stereotypical, but so far 3 of the kids have achieved perfect SAT scores. One in Ivy League school right now. More to come. All have been taught exactly how to bitchslap the secular liberal establishment in good fun!
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM
that word sounds nasty.. :}
Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Well, as you said, AGW is falsifiable. ID is not. I suppose I wouldn’t be so turned off by ID if it weren’t such a transparent attempt to put creationism-light in schools. Its not as if it is a viable scientific theory which rose within the scientific community of its own volition. It’s just viewed as convenient vehicle for the political interests of the religious right. Otherwise it would languish in obscurity and we wouldn’t be talking about it.
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 10:27 PM
The Crusade didn’t start first,only after the Muslim’s
decided they wanted the world,and yes some crusaders
weren’t angels in some of their actions,either,but
after many engagements,the Crusaders rolled back the
Muslim’s! Unless I’ve read the wrong rendition of
History!
canopfor on June 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM
A pretty good indicator is when they say “the debate is over” or “this is settled science.”
These are words NEVER spoken by a true intellectual; they are words spewed by an ideologue who does not deserve his tenure.
Sadly, the typical college president is too spineless to stand up to these blowhards. So there you have it.
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Ah, the “mechanisms of evolution” argument. In other words, we have observable and testable data that if you mate a male donkey with a female horse, you get a mule. So, what happens when you try to mate a male mule with a female mule?
If we put the two mules in Alaska, will that increase or decrease their chances of reproduction? How about if we move them to a romantic beach in the Bahamas?
If the two mules can’t reproduce (which they can’t), does that observable and measurable data disprove evolution? No. All it proves is that mules can’t reproduce.
Evolutionists are simply taking data and making suppositions to support what they want to believe – that the entire universe and the life on this planet all happened by accident.
Now tell me, which requires the greatest leap of faith?
.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Parents should be able to transfer funds from public schools to Private Schools, on a per student basis..
School Choice.
Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Agreed. This is one of a few issues why I don’t consider myself a Republican. I don’t have a problem with religious people in general but I have a big problem with holy-rollers who in their efforts to utilize the government to indoctrinate children would pervert science with their religion.
Religion has nothing more to do with science than it does with math.
FloatingRock on June 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Well – it just seems to me that to set the issue up as Jindal’s professor has – that if he signs the bill and it becomes law it will stiffle or stop the progression of biological science as we know it, says a little too much, no? I mean, if the theory (ID) sucks, and evolution is as compelling as science has staked it out to be, why not say in a classroom – there are a lot…a lot…of people of faith who believe in a creator who set this in motion/did this/whatevs.
Look, I honestly don’t know enough about ID as proposed for being taught in schools. But, I am an educated Christian who believes in a creator (and also, mostly in evolution), and I’m tired of being condescended to. This may all be because I reject the Modern distinction between “natural” and “supernatural.”
nailinmyeye on June 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM
There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages. It was later followed by a similar time called the Jindal Ages [updated].
- Richard Lederer
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Traffic must be down. Hot Atheist to the rescue!
TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Hmmm.
Qualifiers are important.
Sounds like AGW to me. Which is being taught in schools. Funny, that.
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I should have also said that I don’t believe that certainty is attainable in almost anything (except possibly mathematics – I think it would come closest), and so the arrogance of science (and many times of fellow creationists), bothers me greatly.
nailinmyeye on June 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
So why don’t we get the gubmit out of the business of edumicating our chilluns?
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
And amazingly, it managed to maintain much of the knowledge of the ancients that would have otherwise been lost, lead to Renaissance, the discovery of the new world, the founding of the greatest nation the world has ever know.
TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Dark Ages?
Isn’t that when some atheists killed non-believers by the millions in the Soviet Union for their lack of faith in the State?
GT on June 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Or – some people genuinely want to have a hearing for their faith, which they have a sincere belief in.
nailinmyeye on June 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
In the end, I agree. But you have to start somewhere, and for a while, Christians are just going to have to do whatever it takes to educate their children. I know many who have sold their houses and drastically downsized so that they could send their kids to private school. It’s just the reality of where we are right now.
Weight of Glory on June 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Galileo was certainly a lot closer to the mark on things than the idiot dictators of The Church. He was trying to liberate mankind from the Dark Ages; they were trying to keep mankind enslaved in the Dark Ages.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Quite the opposite. We’re seeking a level playing field, and an honest assessment of evolution (is “punctuated equilibrium” still seriously discussed?) as a pseudo-scientific narrative of our origins.
The ones having an agenda jammed in their throats are those who object to “evolution” as factual. You seem willing to justify this because you’re so incredibly certain you’re correct, but democracy (and education) don’t work that way.
TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
From the above essay, to which I linked, this passage seems rather appropriate for the discussion at hand; and I think it will help push this thread to at least 250:
Weight of Glory on June 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I’m Catholic. I have a sincere belief in my faith. But it doesn’t belong in a public school science class. Why would that be the place for a hearing for our faith?
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Them that matter don’t mind and them that mind don’t matter.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Not a fan of those two phrases, either, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to give criticism equal weight just for the sake of criticism.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I didn’t say that the public school classroom was. What I was attempting to address was the attribution of motives in an uncharitable manner. Is it really true that ID is promoted only for political motives or because of the religious right? If it wasn’t for those things religious zealots would be told to shut up?
Or, is it possible that there are genuine people who genuinely believe (whether you think that they are wrong or not), that evolution is not all that there is to say on the matter, and they desire a hearing?
nailinmyeye on June 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Is belief in a Creator or Superior Being solely a Catholic idea? Is teaching that the universe had some sort assistance from a Superior Being and that the Universe wasn’t just some happy series of wild coincidences mean that Catholicism is being taught in a public school?
GT on June 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Indeed. It’s almost like if you say that exorcism cures cancer then you’re an idiot no matter what else you do. Crazy times.
freevillage on June 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Last one, then I’m calling it a night. Again from Dorothy Sayers:
If you keep reading, she makes a convincing argument for education being framed (and by that I mean in its organization) like the Trivium: Grammar, Dialectic, Rhetoric. It’s a great read. Now, back to my magic spells.
Weight of Glory on June 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Enter the enablers who further get away from the topic by pitting one faith against another. Shame on you.
highhopes on June 17, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
- Pope Urban II
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Sorry, but other than how it relates to funding there are no entitlements mentioned anywhere in the scientific method. Your theories have to have sufficient scientific merit to be considered on a “level playing field” to other theories.
The scientific review process may resemble democracy in some respect but it certainly is not a democratic process, and the only relevance education has in science is to ensure a new generation of critical thinkers to continue the discovery of how the universe works, which is a gradual process. The people who don’t understand the scientific method and hope to pervert the education process are the enemies of knowledge and truth.
FloatingRock on June 17, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Here is a sincere question:
What if the underlying assumption of an Intelligent Designer, apart from the specific claims of ID and whatever your objections to them are, but what if that is actually the correct assumption?
If it is true that some form of creative energy was involved in the genesis of our known universe, any considered study of our origins that specifically excludes the possibility will be wrong at least in part and likely in its entirety.
I grant that these questions cannot be either proven or disproven, but that is the whole reason that both possibilities have to be allowed into the conversation–in this application, including what is taught in schools. Does it mean that belief and philosophy start to rear their heads in science? Yes, but they always have.
TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Gee well it sure seems that Evangelical Christians seem to be the one’s supporting ID. There’s not exactly a vast, diverse religious coalition which helped create and support ID. Regardless, my point still stands if you substitute “religious” for “Catholic”.
p.s. the “random coincidence” or “chance” stuff is cute, but disingenuous. It has a way of over-simplifying a process which takes place over millions upon millions of years. Couldn’t you also say it’s “chance” that a God decided to create us?
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 11:00 PM
The pro-science side hasn’t done a great job (myself included) of defending evolution without going out of our way to demean the deeply held beliefs of Christians. Chalk it up to frustration.
The criticisms ID offers are frankly stupid. It’s frustrating to see ID jump in front of the line for special treatment in our schools just because it happens to be politically correct for some Christians.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 11:02 PM
No one is suggesting perverting anything. You prejudge the validity and usefulness of pursuing alternate theories to evolution. The scientific method, in my experience, is applied with a great deal of selectivity and is entirely subject to whims of personality and university politics. That said, no one has as yet suggested that the scientific method be abandoned or superceded by some new paradigm.
TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 11:04 PM
That sounds fair to me as long as I on behalf of medical science get to dissect and study his brain.
Sigy on June 17, 2008 at 11:05 PM
What a fantastic victory for the state of Louisiana. I believe there were several other states considering the same types of bills, but I don’t know how far along they are.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM
AGW isn’t a scientific theory. It is a general conclusion based on many wide-ranging testable, scientific facts… whether that conclusion is correct is debatable, but it is indisputably science.
ID is indisputably not science, so it shouldn’t be taught in science class.
Very straight forward.
DaveS on June 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Rumor has it he’s a New Yorker
He’s a reckless lawyer
I hear he carries several whips
He’s a sultan of Wall Street
with women at his fingertips
They say he’s nearly seven feet tall
And yet quite graceful……all in all
I’m told he waddles when he walks
And often twitches when he talks
Is he a dolt? No, he’s very deep!
Oh, Hotair’s losing sleep!
Who is Allahpundit?
Is he a hero or a monk
A sick stalker, a fighting Patton, or a drunk?
Who is Allahpundit?
I’m sure he’s flatulent and crass
Here, here, the man’s a horse’s ass
No, no, he’s neighborly and kind
But quite erotically inclined
Whatever guise he may employ,
He’s Hotair’s pride and joy
This plucky nonpareil
This lucky, bloody swell
Who is Allahpundit?
Percy on June 17, 2008 at 11:24 PM
And its the Atheists supporting evolution. And the difference is???
Lets suppose that it is only those narrow-minded Bible Thumpers from Bob Jones University walking the straight’n'narrow pink and blue sidewalks that supported the teaching of ID in public schools. Then I would concede that you may have a point. The problem is that millions of Americans like the idea of having the option of something else other than Saint Darwin and his Electric Beagle forced down their throats on the Holy Altar of Enlightened Education.
If it were only a handful of people who supported the teaching of ID in public schools, do you really think that Louisiana Congress would unanimously defy the NEA?
What is wrong with giving a opposing point of view in a public school?
Is presenting only one side of an argument education or propaganda?
Dude, the entire idea of evolution is that everything happened by astronomically random series of coincidences. Believing that compressing massive amounts of hydrogen that appear out of nowhere until it exploded means that the universe will end up with the existence of Jessica Alba in a tiny bikini requires a great more faith than Catholicism ever will.
No.
.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM
The only reason this is ‘the hottest of hot button issues’ is because atheists and evolutionists make it that way. Nobody complains about this as much as atheists do. . . sort of like ‘gay marriage’.
Gay marriage isn’t an issue most people care to consider because it is like proposing a law for swimming birds or flying fish – it makes no sense and is irrelevant.
However, there is just as much scientific evidence to teach the biology class that homosexuality is a genetic trait as there is in teaching evolution (which is to say there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no real factual science).
How’s that for your establishment classroom discussion. But teach, how could homosexuals have evolved – that trait should have been eliminated by survival of the fittest hundreds of thousands of years ago. But teach, if they were created, why would God have created them with the pre-disposition (class of people in need of federal consideration) to something he considers sinful?
Oh yeah, Biology has become wonderful ‘science’. You atheists are so smart that you convince yourselves of flawed science to prove it.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM
ID and AGW are both fundamentally and inherently religious and not scientific. Neither belongs in schools.
ID is pretty much entirely based on the fact that we do not know exactly and precisely how certain traits have developed in several species; therefore it must have been the interference of a supernatural/divine being that made those changes.
AGW is pretty much entirely based on the fact that our current understanding of how climate works, as represented by models, does not exactly and precisely match the observed climate; therefore it must have been the interference of human activity that made those changes.
AGW is not science. ID is not science. Both are founded on faulty premises. What is amusing is that the faithful of both ideologies attack the other when they use the same twisting of data, logic, and terminology. But then again religions always hate heretics more than unbelievers.
Those who point out that AGW’s acceptance in schools is due to the dominence of the Left in academia and the media are absolutely correct. However, that does not mean that the response should be to resurrect mandatory religion as an alternative. Nor does bringing ID into any curriculuum balance the scales — rather it adds to the destruction of rational thought that AGW and its related ideological brethren already have begun.
Understand, the Left does not only want to dominate for now, it want to re-work humanity into its image so it can dominate forever. By adopting their techniques, you are doing their job for them.
TABoLK on June 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM
No one is suggesting perverting anything. You prejudge the validity and usefulness of pursuing alternate theories to evolution.
TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 11:04 PM
If that is the wish of the ID supporters then they should work through the scientific process and cease their incessant efforts to subvert that very same process by promoting legislation allowing them to bypass it and instead indoctrinate children who are supposed to be learning about science in science class.
The fact that they have to resort to law instead of science is proof of the spuriousness of their claims.
FloatingRock on June 17, 2008 at 11:27 PM
If you look at what was taught in schools before evolution became part of the curriculum, I don’t think you will find alchemy and magic included. There are a lot of wild assumptions being made about the effect of this bill.
Rose on June 17, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Sure it’s knuck dragging idiocy. But at least it’s bipartisan knuckle dragging idoicy.
phronesis on June 17, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Precisely.
.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 11:30 PM
The “Scientific Process”, better known as “Scientific Method” is as follows…..
1) Ask a question.
2) Do background research.
3) Construct a hypothesis.
4) Devise and conduct a test.
5) Observe the result of the test.
6) Analyze results and make conclusions.
7) Determine the validity of the hypothesis.
Evolution and ID both fail at #4 and #5.
.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 PM
It is amazing to me that we find something that atheists care so much about. I can’t believe that there are so many militant ANTI-GOD people who base their lives on telling people how proud they are that they DON’T believe in God. It makes them feel so ‘superior’ to tell people that they don’t believe in God.
It makes them feel smart to say that believing evolution isn’t factual makes you a ‘religious fanatic’. They feel smart thinking that any question of a flawed theory is heresy against evolution and the messenger must be burned at the stake and called names incessantly.
It’s quite fascinating to me and really the most telling example of the quote ‘thou dost protest too much’. Why do you care how the origin of the species is taught? This is a unanimous bill, and atheists think it’s so offensive to them. I don’t get it. Why is the concept of the POSSIBILITY of a loving God so offensive to the atheists? Why do they have to establish their religion of no God across the world?
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Sometimes you people in the colonies absolutely amaze me. You are all debating the wrong thing! The debate should not logically be between Evolution and Intelligent Design but rather should very clearly be between Devolution and Unintelligent Design. Your choices for President should be more than enough to make this obvious fact abundantly clear to all of you. It is so elementary after all.
Holmes on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Well said.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Percy, Paris must be quite happy. I almost said “gay” but recalled that it means something else these days.
HA should have a feature whereby when something is very entertaining, of course assessed by each individual, we should be able to click on a button and accumulate points. Those to be converted once a quarter into money we should send in for a noble charity in the name of HA.
Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Holmes, mind your own elections, though I should say that Mr. Cameron, the new conservative, is closer every day to being your next PM.
Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 11:42 PM
If you go to the discovery.org website, there is the petition of over 700 scientists who are skeptical about Darwinism and do not buy into that theory. That’s not to mention others who are afraid to come forward in fear of losing their jobs in academia.
But then again, it’s the discovery institute, and these universities like Yale, Princeton and the National Academy of Sciences must be full of backwoods, Bible Thumping hicks, right?
And for all of you people who claim, “I’m a faithful Christian, and even I don’t believe this should be taught in the school system.” Grow a pair.
Because believe it or not, schools and science curricula were a whole lot better back in the “evil unenlightened period” where evolution was not taught and church attendance was much higher. Obviously, I’m not equating a better education to stronger Christian fundamentalism. But, I am saying that our literacy and graduation rates were much higher back then. Our understanding of math and complex systems was much better then. And students in inner cities were competing for scholarships at major universities. Now we are dropping out and falling behind in math and science. And this shocks me, because we no longer allow this silly religious talk in our schools (sarcasm).
Why are we importing scientists from overseas to work at our institutions and industries? It can’t get any worse people. A little more inquiry and curiousity never has nor ever will hurt the process.
edbarnes on June 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM
As well he should. The sooner LA students learn the truth, that Cihuacoatl created man from the bones of the previous ages and the blood of Quetzalcoatl, the better…
elgeneralisimo on June 17, 2008 at 11:46 PM
No, it’s evidence of the hegemenous grip of the evolutionary establishment and their utter unwillingness to even have this coversation.
If it’s really as immaterial an argument as you say, teach both side by side, and the sheer logical weightiness of the evolutionary view will make ID appear laughable and foolish.
I’d be interested to how you’d reply to my question above; what if the underlying notion of an intelligent designer is correct? How could/should inquiry into that possibility proceed?
TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 11:48 PM
No dude, that was just you who was made like that. We’d all agreed not to tell you.
TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM
You have a point. Jimmy Carter truly was an embarrassment. Now we have Obama trying to give him a second term.
Oh the shame. If only they would exercise the same acumen as your Neville Chamberlain when it came to foreign policy. The world would be a better place.
.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Ah yes but you see we also had our Winston Churchill and in the colonies you now only have Obama and McCain to choose from. Declaring your independence worked out for you very well for a while but now, not so well it would appear.
Holmes on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Notice that “refer the bible” isn’t included in the scientific process.
FloatingRock on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Asked and answered your own question…
elgeneralisimo on June 17, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Thanks for putting it so eloquently. That is the real crux of the problem of having ID in schools. Can’t have another viewpoint, might make you think.
cjs1943 on June 18, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Neither is ‘make huge all-encompassing assumptions’
Something that evolutionists and atheists don’t get is that if evolution is not accurate that doesn’t mean that Creation is. That’s the problem with being able to see the factual science. evolutionists don’t want to consider God. . . they think if they recognize that creatures did NOT evolve, then they have to believe in the Biblical account.
That’s not the scientific method either. If one thing is not accurate, that does not mean something else is. The evolutionists need to let it go. It didn’t happen the way the evolutionists are teaching it.
ThackerAgency on June 18, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Since you are so open minded, I take it you also support presenting FSM-ID in our schools. If two viewpoints are always better than one, surely three are better than two.
phronesis on June 18, 2008 at 12:06 AM
So what are you so afraid of? The actual, full-bodied Genesis creation account was taught, in U.S. government schools and back through the last 2000 years. Civilization somehow struggled on. The least whiff of a suggestion that ID be taught in schools and you’re in convulsions?
TexasDan on June 18, 2008 at 12:06 AM
The “Scientific Process”, better known as “Scientific Method” is as follows…..
1) Ask a question.
2) Do background research.
3) Construct a hypothesis.
4) Devise and conduct a test.
5) Observe the result of the test.
6) Analyze results and make conclusions.
7) Determine the validity of the hypothesis.
Evolution and ID both fail at #4 and #5.
Wrong. ID fails miserably. Evolution can succeed and has, in fact, succeeded. One example of such a test:
Hypothesis: dogs and bears evolved from a common ancestor; therefore dogs and bears will share significant anatomical and genetic traits.
Then you compare dog DNA to bear DNA.
Actually, the exact testing is a lot more specific and technical (going into detail about the inheritance of particular mutations and genetic sequences), but that’s the gist of it.
Actually, evolution has been tested a great deal since DNA testing was developed. And far more often than not the old models that were developed only from the fossil record and comparative anatomy have stood up remarkably well.
As for predictions that ended up partially validating evolutionary theory, the existence and function of DNA was fairly accurately predicted long before it was isolated.
So far as positive mutations go, have the penicillin resistant strains of the clap all magically disappeared? Also, there’s a particular bacterium that can now ‘eat’ toxic waste due to a beneficial mutation. Or does that not count (and in a few minutes will I be reading some long screed about ‘micro’ vs. ‘macro’)?
As with Global Warming, there is also a lot of cherry-picked and manipulated data with ID.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 12:08 AM
True, science isn’t about the pursuit of god, it’s about the pursuit of knowledge. That’s undoubtedly why so many religious people have a problem with science and wish to turn it into something it’s not: religion.
BTW, the bases of this discussion we’re having is very old, as old as science itself. The teaching of ID is only the most recent occurrence of religious people trying to pervert science to their own ends.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 12:08 AM
And let’s teach trutherism in history class, too, and let the students decide which version of 9/11 is true. If we’re going to throw rational thought out the window why take half measures?
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Again with the perverting. “Religious” people are the nice folks that brought you science, in no small part.
TexasDan on June 18, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Cheers. And, I’ll be honest and say that some from the creation perspective (ID or not, as I said, I’m not as familiar as I should be with ID proposed for teaching in schools), are too quick with condescension at times as well. But – this is the same for most issues.
I’m just tired of being made a simpleton for believing in a god. I’m 6 months from a PhD, and frankly I’m not an idiot. It is only in the past 400 years that there has been a differentiation between natural and supernatural events. It seems to me that before the Enlightenment and Modernity the prevailing view was that god is involved in all things – therefore whatever process produced us, god is inherently involved in it. I wouldn’t advocate reverting to a Pre-Modern state (I really like medication, and cars), but I think that there is something to some things.
nailinmyeye on June 18, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Dude – haven’t you seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?
nailinmyeye on June 18, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Not all of them, just certain ones. Through the ages others have tried to destroy it.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Spaghetti was created by man, that which is created cannot create that which creates it.
Rose on June 18, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Nice try.
Again, its supposition. DNA does not prove evolution try as you might. You’re making the same mistake that Arthur Caplan (professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania) did in his 2/2001 article at MSNBC when he said…
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right—mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ancestors.
Then he said…
Uh…where’s the evidence that? From ultimately inorganic material no less.
Its like asking us to believe that one day 3 billion lines of computer code floating out there on the internet will one day coalesce into sentience and learn Fortran on its own.
Good luck with that.
GT on June 18, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Science and religion are an entirely different set of principles. Belief in one doesn’t preclude belief in the other and neither of them are indicative of intelligence. There is obviously a lot of crappy science and religion going on but always the truth will withstand the test of time; science through observation and testing and religion through the affect it has on peoples lives.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 12:30 AM
:)
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Again with the perverting. “Religious” people are the nice folks that brought you science, in no small part.
This is broadly true; but there have also been fundamentalist reactions against even theistic science throughout history. Not only in Christian communities, it should also be noted.
I would also say that Global Warming, as an aspect of neo-pagan-earth-worship-ism, is a bit newer in terms of theological attacks on science. And at the moment the greater danger to proper science due to its acceptance by academia and the media.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM
But did man create spaghetti in his own image? And how do you know that man create spaghetti? Maybe some aliens brought it to earth long ago.
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Ignorance… dogmatic creation myths are a poor substitute for science…
elgeneralisimo on June 18, 2008 at 12:33 AM
MB4, unless you look like a stand of fettuccine, I would say, no, man did not create spaghetti in his own image. And if aliens did give us spaghetti, it means the Italians are holding out on us regarding the existence of other intelligent life in the universe. At least life that knows a thing or two about yummy food.
Rose on June 18, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Well it’s a whole lot easier to believe than it is that some Invisible Guy just sprang into existence knowing Fortran, COBOL and C++. or was always “there” always knowing Fortran, COBOL and C++.
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Voltaire is said to have lampooned Sir Isaac Newton for predicting, on the basis of his Bible studies, that mankind would one day travel at speeds reaching 50 miles per hour.
This incident happens to be my all-time favourite example of an atheist mocking a Christian.
aengus on June 18, 2008 at 12:41 AM
You left out Perl.
aengus on June 18, 2008 at 12:43 AM
GT.
No. You are just arguing to argue, and not reading. The very existence of DNA was predicted by Darwin’s theory. That species had evolved from other primitive forms was already postulated, and accepted by the 19th century. The question was how. Darwin’s theory built on other theories regarding genetic inheritance, and with those theories predicted the existence and function of DNA. DNA was not isolated, mapped, or even known prior to the 1940′s. That was a very significant threshold.
Anyways, the argument about the specific arrangment of ACGT’s in our genome is a ridiculous one. By your logic, since it is so manifestly improbable that anyone could ever win a lottery (at odds of several billions to one) then no-one ever has won a lottery.
Or flip a coin 200 times, and write the results down here. I will then call you a liar, because the odds of that particular sequence are so astronomical that it could not have possibly occurred by chance.
Do you begin to understand how empty and specious the argument from improbability is?
Also, the comparison of random letters to Fortran code is a completely false comparison, because letters have no method of self-reproduction like DNA does.
And lastly, you conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution takes as its starting point the existance of some kind of life form that is capable of reproducing itself. Abiogenesis is a completely different theory, that deals with completely different chemical situations.
TABoLK on June 18, 2008 at 12:44 AM
MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM
This calls for a Fusilli Jerry reference.
DaveS on June 18, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Voltaire was absolutely correct. This is what every mathematician is taught. You can be sure if something is true only if you can write a legitimate proof. Believing otherwise is equivalent to approving a method of adding 2 and 2 by tossing a coin if someone did it and accidentally got a 4.
freevillage on June 18, 2008 at 12:49 AM
tossing a die
freevillage on June 18, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Why must you censor FSM-ID? Maybe man-made spaghetti is just a simulacrum of the FSM, part of his revelation to mankind. Teach all three theories and let the children make up their own minds. If FSM-ID is really so absurd the children will just reject it themselves. No harm done.
phronesis on June 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM
phronesis, fine with me. Let’s teach all three and let the students debate the three theories. I remember in the seventies having debates regarding evolution and creation, adding a third theory will at least allow for some interesting discussions.
Rose on June 18, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next »