Second, my buddies and I often get in some great email debates, so I thought I would start posting them here.
From: Rick
Subject: The Flying Spaghetti Monster...
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:44:07 -0600
Shall I sign us all up for this? They've definitely got a new follower in
myself.
http://www.venganza.org/
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 02:42:51 PM EST
From: Eric
OK, I'll go ahead and kick over the hornet's nest. I've got too much stress
in my life right now, I need to unload on something...
The fuckin' judges who are wanting to bar the teaching of ID can kiss my
ass!
Simple question for the simple people who are absolute believers in
Evolution to the complete exclusion of anything hinting at a higher power:
Can you say with 100% intellectual honesty that your view of the universe is
absolutely correct?
As a follow-up: What is your opinion of the schools who teach Creationism
or ID and exclude any mention at all of Evolution?
Yeah, I thought so.
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 04:08:25 PM EST
From: Mark
uh, ok I'll bite.
I sure hope that the schools here in Raleigh never
teach ID. That would actually get me to a school
board meeting to object.
ID may, or may not, be the truth, but it is religion;
something that is taken on faith. Science is a
systematic study of the physical world, not the
super-natural world. I want my kids to learn science
in science class - not religion.
Of course, I don't think that science has, or will
ever, have all of the answers. That question is
irrelevant. No one, to my knowledge, is arguing that
science is all knowing.
And my opinion of schools that only teach ID or
creationism. Well, some parents want their kids to be
ignorant, I suppose. I don't get your point.
Mark
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 04:24:29 PM EST
From: Steven
Science isn't all-knowing, but it's the best objective way we've got of
understanding and describing the world. To quote from the FAQ section of
the Venganza website:
"But if you doubt the science that allows us to guess the age of the earth,
then please stop using your computer, cell phones, and TV. The same methods
of science that brought you those are the same methods we use for these evil
evolution theories. Science is NOT truth, it's the search for truth, fact."
Another example of a useful discipline that searches for but does not
produce TRUTH is financial accounting. Accounting, like science, tries to
describe reality. Accounting, like science, does not and cannot perfectly
do its job. Accounting, like science, has bodies and boards of people who
come up with mutually agreed methods of doing things that are then used in
practice, with the ultimate goal of helping people and advancing
civilization. And, as in science, accounting has differences of opinion and
disagreements among its practitioners.
None of this, however, means that "Andy Fastow Accounting," whatever its
merits, should be required to be taught alongside more conventionally
accepted accounting courses at universities that receive government funding.
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 04:34:08 PM EST
From: Eric
So, if something even touches on religion it should remain completely taboo
in schools?
What if it also happens to be the truth?
Let's just, for a moment, accept the idea that there is a God and that he
did, in fact, create the universe. Just suppose for a moment that you were
somehow given irrefutable proof that God existed and he was the architect of
it all: Would you change your view on whether or not Creationism should be
taught in schools?
If not, why not? we're talking about FACT at this point, so why not teach
it?
If so, I am sure your next argument back is that anything short of that
irrefutable proof leaves a gap that can only be filled with 'faith', i.e.
religion. Right?
Well, believe it or not, Evolution is only a theory, does NOT explain it
all, does NOT have proof for it all and, therefore also involves 'faith' to
fill the gaps. I don't see much difference.
And, if you want to rely solely on science, it's not a big leap to get
science to point to Creationsism or ID. For example, think of the order of
the universe in terms of statistical probablilty. What is the liklihood,
statistically speaking, that an entire universe with billions of sentient
beings and millions of complex species evolving out of absolute nothingness?
What do the odds say about alternative explanations relative to the random
outcome that specifically must have occurred to account for the existence
and you, me and everybody else?
I don't see anything to compel me to believe that Evolution require any less
faith than the alternatives.
And, as for the ignorance comment... for the record I agree that Evolution
should be taught. But, I also believe that omitting ANY of these
alternatives leads to ignorance.
Now, of course, I fully expect to be on my own on this issue and take a
severe pounding. But, that's ok. I can take it.
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 04:40:45 PM EST
From: Eric
"But if you doubt the science that allows us to guess the age of the earth,
then please stop using your computer, cell phones, and TV. The same methods
of science that brought you those are the same methods we use for these evil
evolution theories. Science is NOT truth, it's the search for truth, fact."
-- Horrible analogy. Computers work (well, most of the time). There is a
result that is verifiable when I do a calculation on my spreadsheet. If I
really wanted to I could put pencil to paper and prove it out with 100%
assurance.
"None of this, however, means that "Andy Fastow Accounting," whatever its
merits, should be required to be taught alongside more conventionally
accepted accounting courses at universities that receive government
funding."
Nice daming analogy. Equating anything contrary to Evolution as being akin
to fraud. This doesn't exactly move the conversation forward.
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 04:41:26 PM EST
From: Steven
Eric,
FYI, also from the website (http://www.venganza.org/faq.htm):
"I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is
religion posing as science. Teach creationism in school, fine, but DON'T
teach it in a science classroom."
Just so we're clear on the guy's actual motives and opinion and not
ascribing him with something else (see first sentence below...)
Happy Holiday,
Steve
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 04:52:30 PM EST
From: Mark
Irrefutable proof is not required but science has
testable hypotheses. ID and creationism does not.
Period.
When you come up with an experiment that will find
evidence that supports ID, then I am all for it. And
I mean real hypothesis, real experiments, not
conjecture.
I think that my next paper will be "Intelligent Design
as an Explanation for the Performance of Firms
Subsequent to Mergers". Given that I cannot test my
theory, then I am totally speaking out of my ass.
Which is in fact what ID is - just rhetorical
guesswork.
Date: Tue 20 Dec 2005 05:16:13 PM EST
From: Rick
Thanks, Mark, for pointing out what I think is the most important point.
The theory of evolution was brought about using the scientific method. That
means we make an observation, create a hypothesis, experiment, and then show
results. That goes from anything that is the theory of evolution to the
theory of relativity. All of this is science. The theory of evolution has
brought about several important sub-theories that have been important
biological breakthroughs.
With intelligent design, an observation has been made, a hypothesis has been
developed, but no experimentation or results have been produced. That is
not science. That is religion. Its simply not possible to experiment with
intelligent design. What do we do? Call the flying spaghetti monster and
ask him to create a planet?
I personally don't give a shit if they teach intelligent design in schools,
although it should be done in Social Studies alongside of Buddhism,
Hinduism, Muslim, Judaism, existentialism, and reincarnation.
These kind of ideas don't belong in a science class.
-- Rick
Date: Wed 21 Dec 2005 11:28:49 AM EST
From: Terrill
My views on this subject:
First and foremost… Midgets are always funny. Glad to see the FSM created them right behind Mountains and Trees!
The theory of ID should absolutely be taught in schools. To not do so would be just as irresponsible as not teaching evolution. Now, before you all roll your eyes, read the rest of this.
So, where should it be taught? A couple of different classes would fit. History, Government, Philosophy, and oh yeah… Science! As in Physics, as in Cosmology, as in Quantum Mechanics. God has always played a part in the hypothesis and the “proven” theories throughout the history of science. That is a fact and that fact should be taught when these theories are taught. Not because we want the little children to run out and pray to the FSM or God or whomever, but because it had and continues to have an impact on science. Should we teach that there is a God? No, that should be taught in a church or as part of a religion class, but to leave out the impact that ID has on the scientific community is denying knowledge.
If you have not already read Hawking’s lecture on the subject, you should.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Terrill
Date: Wed 21 Dec 2005 05:23:20 PM EST
From: Mark
I thought that Rick said that 99.9% of scientists
think that ID as a science is idiotic, not that they
don't believe in a god. Big difference.
The proponents of ID want ID to be used as an
alternative theory to evolution; not an addendum to
the theory of evolution. Many scientist may believe
that a god may have gotten the ball rolling, but they
do not use their belief in god as a scientific theory
for explaining phenomenon in the natural world.
I agree, ID can be taught along other explanations for
why the universe exists at all. These explanations
are religious and should be viewed in that light.
Date: Wed 21 Dec 2005 07:14:52 PM EST
From: michael
Wow - I go on vacation for a couple of days and a debate breaks out! Most of the good points have been taken, but I'll chime in anyway.
Science tries to explain *how* the world works, not why we have this existence rather than some other one. Intelligent Design isn't scientific and it isn't an alternative to natural selection - therefore it doesn't belong in a science class. To me, ID is in the same boat as metaphysics or astrology or mythology or chiropracty or theology - it is a pseudoscience.
As far as scientists supporting ID, check out http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp. A pretty telling statement on the number of scientists that support ID over evolution, as well as being pretty damn funny!
-mck
Date: Wed 21 Dec 2005 08:56:07 PM EST
From: Rick
>
>I thought that Rick said that 99.9% of scientists
>think that ID as a science is idiotic, not that they
>don't believe in a god. Big difference.
>
Thanks, and that's exactly what I did say before it was rewritten (thanks,
Terrill). ;-)
Lots of scientists believe that god is the creator. However, 99.9% of those
same scientists believe in that idea out of FAITH, not science. Because all
scientists (even the bad ones) know the difference.
On a side note, I seriously question so-called religious individuals who
feel they have to justify their faith with science. That sort of misses the
entire point of religion itself, doesn't it? Salvation and enlightenment
through faith?
-- Rick
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:46:16 AM EST
From: Steven
On a side note, I seriously question so-called religious individuals who
feel they have to justify their faith with science. That sort of misses the
entire point of religion itself, doesn't it? Salvation and enlightenment
through faith?
-- Rick
For all of those who couldn't quite remember the text from The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy excerpt:
The argument goes like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God,
"for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not
have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own
arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in
a puff of logic.'
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 09:23:37 AM EST
From: Eric
So Rick and Mark want to approach this whole subject from a "purity of
science" angle. Hypotheses, testing, physical evidence and whatnot. Well,
ok. That is at least something that I can get on board with. That is an
argument that I can respect.
But, as we all know, in the real world things are not that simple. And
that sure as hell is not the angle that the people who are fighting against
ID in the courts are taking.
In a funny little coincidence, as I started my car after work on Tuesday the
radio was on an AM station that was doing a news update and they were in the
middle of a story about this week's ID ruling in Pennsylvania. They had a
fantastic quote from one of the activists on the winning side. I won't get
the exact words right, but it went something very much like this: "This
ruling will help put Intelligent Design back on even footing with beliefs in
Big Foot, the Easter Bunny and the idea that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS."
This is a man who does not give a shit about the purity of science. He
believes that people of faith are brainless morons who are deluded into
believing in myths and determined to spread their simple-minded fairytales
to all schoolchildren as a form of indoctrination. And from what I have
seen his POV is far from unique among the fervent Evolutionists.
Now, I'm not necessarily lumping present company in with this nutjob, but I
think the quote was very instructional as to the motivation behind the
movement and it's indicative of what is actually going on in classrooms
today, where mention of ID or Creationism is uttely taboo.
But, as I said, if you want to approach this from a strict 'scientific
process' POV, I can listen to that. But if we are going to do that, some
changes need to be made, because that sure as hell is not what is going on
in the classrooms today.
Think back to when you were taught Evolution in school. Was there ever, at
any point, any emphasis on the gaps in the Theory of Evolution? Yes, I
remember being told it was a theory, but from that point on, it was taught
as FACT. It was taught as gospel. There was no doubt that what we were
being taught was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But if we are so interested in the purity of the scientific process, then
let's be up front and have our teachers spend some serious time discussing
the things that Evolution does NOT explain. Let's make sure the kids are
exposed to the gaps in the arecheological reords, and the BIG QUESTION that
evolution does not even attempt to answer, but is the most obvious question
out there. And to me, that is the very, very natural point where a science
teacher should point out that there are other schools of thought, which do
not necessarily lend themselves to testing via the scientific process, but
are nevertheless very widely held by people (including scientists) around
the world, that address the questions of the origins of the universe and the
presence of all the species alive and thriving on Planet Earth.
If you can't teach science with a great big dose of intellectual honesty
(i.e. being up front about what evolution DOES NOT explain), then you are
advocating nothing that is any better and any less of an indoctrination to a
'faith' than those people who want only Creationism without any mention of
Evolution in the classrooms.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 09:54:06 AM EST
From: Steven
Think back to when you were taught Evolution in school. Was there ever, at
any point, any emphasis on the gaps in the Theory of Evolution? Yes, I
remember being told it was a theory, but from that point on, it was taught
as FACT. It was taught as gospel. There was no doubt that what we were
being taught was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I'd be hard pressed to name one thing I was taught in school that was not
presented, at least within the educational context, as FACT, inasmuch as I
was expected to memorize it and spit it back on an exam. Ambiguity and
nuance are great and extremely useful in the real world, but they don't seem
to have a place in the wholesale public education system that measures its
students based largely on exams that call for the absorption and retention
of "facts" as taught by the teachers. From a young age we're rewarded for
coloring inside the lines and punished for not doing so.
That's why the ID debate is so important. Kids' minds are fertile ground
for any sets of ideas you might want to fill them with, especially with
rewards and punishments attached to the acceptance of those ideas.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 10:10:06 AM EST
From: Mark
I thought that the Scopes trial, Galileo being
imrisoned, etc., were artifacts of a less enlightened
age. Science is science and ID/creationism is
religion.
Terrill and Eric, do either of you actually not
believe in evoluation? Of course, there are gaps in
the record; is it really surprising that we haven't
been able to fully sort out several billion years of
life based on evidence that has been left for us?
I thought that ID proponents were a bunch of religious
fanatics with little education and little
understanding of science. I stand corrected, given
that I respect both of your intelligence. And now I
am more worried that the ID view has broader appeal
than I thought.
That quote that Eric gave from the evolution proponent
may have been over the top, but I have to agree with
the general sentiment. Do we teach fairy-tails as
part of science or not?
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 11:00:49 AM EST
From: Eric
Do I believe that evolution has taken place? Yes, of course. It would be
ridiculous to attempt to assert otherwise. There is, as we all know, a lot
of evidence to support that evolution has happened.
Do I believe that every species on our planet - all the plants, animals,
insects, etc. - all evolved from some sludgy goup where a few atoms bumped
into each other and randomly formed proteins, which evolved into cells, then
later complex organisms, and much later beings with sentience? And that all
of this happened as some sort of pure chance accident?
And poeple think religious folks are the ones hung up on 'faith'...
It all begs the big question: How did it all start? If you believe in the
Big Bang, how did THAT happen? What was there before the Big Bang? What
caused the Big Bang to actually take place? It must have been some massive
instability, but what caused that instability?
In my opinion, I think it's a great leap to actually believe that this
world, this universe we live in is just an accident. With all of its
balance, compleixty, interdependence, soul... I have difficulty seeing how
intelligent and thoughful people - which I know all of you to be - could NOT
believe that there is a higher power behind all of this.
God is truly in the details. From a purely scientific view, you can break
down any organism to its composition of atoms. And now we have advanced to
where we know a good bit about those things that make up atoms. But what
science does not and cannot explain is how those atoms and their subatomic
particles combine to create life. How do they create intelligence? How do
these tiny structures, little bits of stuff, result in a highly complex
organism that can think and feel and create and analyze and question?
This didn't have to happen. And the very intelligent, analytical side of my
being helps me understand that the incredible, overwhelming, supreme odds
against something like this (this being everything in our universe)
happening by a roll of the dice. So, from that same analytical point of
view, it takes much less faith for me to believe in God (or however you want
to refer to as a higher power) than it would for me to believe that we just
'got lucky' that the dice came up sevens.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 11:21:14 AM EST
From: Steven
Eric - none of this discussion is about your beliefs, or my beliefs, or
Mark's, Terrill's or Rick's beliefs. It's about what gets taught in schools
as, as you put it, fact.
If I recall, you were defending the teaching of ID in science classes at
schools alongside evolution (and, presumably, you'd be opposing the teaching
of FSM theory alongside both ID and evolution).
I think all of us get the big "why are we here" questions that lead to all
the debates and arguments. The crux of the public school debate is, do we
teach science-based or faith-based answers to those questions?
The FSM point is that, if you teach one faith-based answer (ID), you have to
teach them all (FSM, etc.). Since you can't teach them all, you have to
choose the ones you do teach. The choice of which faith-based answers to
teach in schools is not a science-based question but a politically-based
question. The popular faith-based theories du jour will typically win out.
I'm curious -- why is it so important to you that public school-educated
children learn ID in a science class? This "theory" wasn't even around when
we all went through the education system, yet it still hasn't seemed to
retard our spiritual or intellectual development.
I'm in the dwindling minority among those participating with no children and
no imminent plans for children. But let me ask all of you: does school
teach your children everything you want them to learn? If not, what do you
do about it? Do you teach them other important things at home? Isn't that
the job of parents?
Eric, can't we leave the faith-based answers beyond the reach of government?
Isn't that why we don't have a state church, why we're not called "The
Christian Republic of America", any why the Constitution was written the way
it was?
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 11:23:48 AM EST
From: Mark
Doesn't this all then bring us back to Mike's earlier
point:
Science tries to explain *how* the world works, not
why we have this existence rather than some other one.
I concede that we should teach our children about the
big question of why does the universe exist. In fact,
we can dedicate one day a week to teach our children
about the big questions of why the universe exists. I
dunno, why don't we choose Sunday?
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 11:38:57 AM EST
From: michael
>> And that sure as hell is not the angle that the people who are fighting against ID in the courts are taking.
There are two types of people fighting against ID: those that oppose any form of religion in schools and those that object to ID being classified as science.
There are two types of people fighting for ID: those that think along the lines Eric mentions and the religious right.
These camps get muddled easily. The quote Eric mentioned strikes me as being from the "ID as science" camp, not a religious opposer. If ID gets included in a class (any class) as a viable alternative to evolution, then I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. Religious objections tend to be more along the lines of "ID is simply Creationism redressed to avoid the Supreme Court ruling stating that scientific creationism is a religious position, and therefore violates the First Amendment's constitutional separation of Church and State." Of course, that quote is mush less likely to get on the radio. :)
>> Think back to when you were taught Evolution in school. Was there ever, at any point, any emphasis on the gaps in the Theory of Evolution? Yes, I remember being told it was a theory, but from that point on, it was taught as FACT. It was taught as gospel. There was no doubt that what we were being taught was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Uh, not for me. We were taught about the THEORY of evolution, not the Gospel of Evolution. I learned that there were gaps in the record and not everything has yet to be explained. I remember no question that read, "True or False: evolution is the only possible explanation for something as complex as the human eye." I was also taught about the theory of relativity, the four color theorem, and that every even number is the difference of two primes. Those can't be proven either, but are widely accepted as fact and many scientific advances have been made based on the idea that they are true.
ID is not a theory. Theories contain attributes like testability and explanatory power. ID is dogmatic, not scientific. A telling example is that lot of the pro-ID effort is devoted to attacking specific aspects of evolutionary theory (gaps in the record, for instance), rather than giving support to their own hypothesis.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:01:32 PM EST
From: michael
>>>I have difficulty seeing how intelligent and thoughful people - which I know all of you to be - could NOT believe that there is a higher power behind all of this.
I don't. The idea that we simply aren't yet advanced enough in our understanding of the world around us to explain everything is much more believable to me than a mystical being spending seven days to create life, the universe, and everything.
>>> ... the incredible, overwhelming, supreme odds against something like this happening by a roll of the dice.
Odds is exactly the right word - odds means how likely something is to happen and can be calculated. The odds of our universe being created by natural means are incredibly small, but not as small as those of use being created by magic or miracles. The odds of seeing a royal flush in a poker game are very small too; clearly the fact that I've never seen one is because a higher power doesn't like me. :)
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:11:03 PM EST
From: Rick
Great points, Eric. I agree totally.
I'm not sure about others' schools, but in my own schools growing up
(Columbus, Ohio) I learned all about the GAPS in my biology classes. It was
absolutely taught.
GAPS are a part of scientific theory, and that is one of the things that
makes up good science. Gaps are identified through testing, hypotheses are
adjusted, re-testing is done, etc... etc. There are gaps in the greatest of
scientific theories (relativity, quantum mechanics).
If there are schools that are teaching that the theory of evolution has no
gaps, that that school should be seriously reprimanded. Because a key point
of teaching scientific theory is teaching not only about what a theory says,
but also about teaching the gaps identified through testing over time.
-- Rick
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:13:43 PM EST
From: Terrill
Damn... that will teach me to go out drinking instead of waiting staying home to read emails.... I feel like I'm talking to a tree. Does anyone read what I write????
Mark, of course I believe in evolution!!!! If you go back and read what I wrote, I was not arguing nor would I argue Creationism vs. Evolution. I was ONLY addressing the thought of Creationism in the scientific world. You folks were talking about banning the pure mention of some sort of Intelligent Design in relation to science. I was arguing that would be irresponsible based on the assumptions of the worlds leading scientist such as Einstein and Hawkings who admit that the thought of a god “kicking things off” had an impact on their research.
NOTE: I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT!!!!!!!
I am simply (or what I thought was simple to understand) making the point that in some sciences the though of a God has had and does have an impact on the study of those sciences. Therefore it is my belief that teachers in those fields of science have a duty to at least mention that fact. To completely ban the mention of a God in any science class is insane and nothing more than a fear of the unexplained which is exactly what science is meant to do… explain things.
So let me see if I can clearly sum up my only point to this debate.
Those that teach the theories of science, especially the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, the cosmos, and especially the Theory of Everything has a responsibility to mention the impact of the existence or non existence of a god has had on those fields of study. When the author of those theories mentions the existence (or one could argue the non-existence) of a god in the briefings of the studies. I believe it is impossible to consider and try to prove the origins of the universe without contemplating the existence of a god. One of these days we will be able to prove or disprove that something can be created from nothing. When that is done, we will be one step closer to proving or disproving the existence of God.
“One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.” – Hawkings
This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.
(Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time', pp.126-127)
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." - Einstein
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
“I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science.”
Albert Einstein; from Peter A. Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel, 1992, p. 86.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:21:20 PM EST
From: Terrill
"I think all of us get the big "why are we here" questions that lead to all
the debates and arguments. The crux of the public school debate is, do we
teach science-based or faith-based answers to those questions?
The FSM point is that, if you teach one faith-based answer (ID), you have to
teach them all (FSM, etc.). Since you can't teach them all, you have to
choose the ones you do teach. The choice of which faith-based answers to
teach in schools is not a science-based question but a politically-based
question. The popular faith-based theories du jour will typically win out."
No, you don't teach that ID is an answer to any question but you do teach that the debate of the existence of ID has had an impact on the development of the "answers". (I put that in quote because I didn't want to be accused of not knowing the difference between theory and fact) :-)
Terrill
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:27:40 PM EST
From: Steven
No, you don't teach that ID is an answer to any question but you do teach that the debate of the existence of ID has had an impact on the development of the "answers". (I put that in quote because I didn't want to be accused of not knowing the difference between theory and fact) :-)
And you teach that in either a comparative religion class or (most appropriately IMO) in a history/social studies/current events class, because one FACT we can agree on is that this topic is being debated!!
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:30:03 PM EST
From: Rick
>
>From: "Terrill Richardson"
>
>Those that teach the theories of science, especially the theories of
>relativity, quantum mechanics, the cosmos, and especially the Theory of
>Everything has a responsibility to mention the impact of the existence or
>non existence of a god has had on those fields of study.
>
I respect you, Terrill, but that is a ridiculous statement. Why do you feel
that a science class has to explain how the existence (or lack thereof) of a
god has impacted a "field of study"? It is IRRELEVANT to scientific theory.
I mean, can you imagine that...?
"Okay, class. Let's talk about the theory of gravitation. Before we start,
let us all acknowledge that Isaac Newton was Christian and believed that the
Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins and that God created our universe and
everything in it. It impacted his view on physics and drove him to
understand it further. Okay, now onto the actual theory..."
The day that science classes start teaching things in that fashion is the
day that I send my child to a private school.
If you think my example is over the top, then please give us an example and
context of how god should be mentioned in a science class? I'd love to hear
it.
-- Rick
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:36:03 PM EST
From: michael
>>> No,you don't teach that ID is an answer to any question but you do teachthat the debate of the existence of ID has had an impact on thedevelopment of the "answers"
Uh - it hasn't had any appreciable impact because ID was only postulated about 10 years ago. Unless of course you buy into the idea that ID is simply Creationism redressed, in which case it is clearly religous and has no place in a public school. :)
Every scientist has motivations and backgrounds. Some of these relate directly to their research (doctors trying to stop the disease that killed their parent) and some don't (Newton getting hit on the head with an apple). In my opinion, though, these belong in a biographical context and not a scientific one. Good quotes, though.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:42:26 PM EST
From: Terrill
OK, so we should teach our budding scientist that the only thing left to research is the gaps in existing theory. That ideas and thoughts that have yet to be theorized should not be tested because that is religion and it has no place in science. And finally that because the existence of a god has yet to be proven we should not use science to prove or disprove that point.
Everything revolves around the Earth was a religious belief. I'm glad some scientist decided check it out anyway.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
-Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
Terrill
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:49:36 PM EST
From: Steven
How do you get from what I just said tothis rant? Or were you just ranting at us as a group?
Testing religious beliefs with scientific methodsis fine, testing scientific theories with religious beliefs…how does thatmake sense?
What scientific test do you propose to validateID?
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:49:55 PM EST
From: Terrill
“OK class, there was this big bang and the universe was created”.
“WOW Miss Muchinsensted, what caused the big bang in the first place”
“We don’t know that”
“Are there any thought as to what caused it?”
“Yes, little Raheb, there is”
“What are they”
“I can’t discuss that”
“Why?”
“Because I would be accused of not being a science teacher”
“But you are a science teacher”
“That doesn’t matter, there is a society out there that doesn’t believe one way and tries to force that belief on you and therefore we can’t discuss it and you should never bring this up again”
“OH, you mean religion”
“No I mean the scientific community”
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:53:10 PM EST
From: Terrill
Actually I was implying that ID was the belief of the existence of a god, and that has been around in schools for a very long time. Only recently as it become taboo.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:54:52 PM EST
From: Terrill
It was more a rant to the general group, but how did you get that I want to test scientific theory with religious beliefs?
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 01:05:47 PM EST
From: Steven
Isn’t that what ID is doing?
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 01:30:39 PM EST
From: Terrill
Not the way I am proposing.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 12:59:51 PM EST
From: Steven
“Where do babies come from MissMuchinsensted?”
“Ask your mom and dad.”
(Let’s assume a nine-year-old kid inboth cases. Please, parents, tell me if I’m wrong.)
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 01:27:05 PM EST
From: Terrill
Lets assume it's a biology class.... and they are 16.
Date: Thu 22 Dec 2005 01:45:20 PM EST
From: Eric
I know that the original discussion is not about my beliefs. I was
responding to Mark who asked if I believe in Evolution, so I expounded a
little on why I believe as I do.
I concede the idea of not addressing ID or Creation in a science class so
long as there is the intellectual honesty that I was asking for while
teaching Evolution in science. If you are in hot pursuit of scientific
purity, then put the honesty with it and emphasize along with everything
else where Evolution falls short. In my mind, as I said, I think this is a
VERY APPROPRIATE point to discuss what other alternative schools of thought
address those issues, but if you guys want to stuff a gag on our science
teachers (as Terrill so beautifully illustrates) so be it.
By refusing to even present students with any thoughts on Creationism or ID
whatsoever - in whatever context you wish: science, social studies,
whatever - the schools are then tacitly supporting the notion that Evolution
has all the answers and is, in fact, Gospel.
The fact is, however, it is not. Intellectual honesty, that is all that I
seek.
As for why this should be addressed in schools at all, as opposed to at
home: I am not asking for an in-depth course on Creationsim, coupled with a
study of the Book of Genesis. I am, as I have repeatedly stated, asking for
the Theory of Evolution to be placed into context. Let the family and
church handle the rest.
And Steve, I cannot believe that you are falling into the Separation of
Church and State trap. There is nothing that Terrill and I have proposed
that in any way specifically points to Christianity, let alone leads in any
way, shape or form to the establishment of a state religion. I hope that I
am wrong, but you seem to be touched with the popular American secular
paranioa that is alive and well today and bordering on outright hostility
towards Christians.
