Evolution vs. so-called Intelligent Design Debate - PhillyBlog

peacemover · #1 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 01:09 PM

There was an article in the NY Times today that I found very insightful on the latest rounds of the creation-evolution; separation ofchurch & state in schools debates...

"Caught Between Church and State"- NY Times OP-ED

Quote:

January 19, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Caught Between Church and State
By SUSAN JACOBY

SHORTLY after the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial," the usually astute historian Frederick Lewis Allen concluded that fundamentalism had been permanently discredited by the prosecution in Dayton, Tenn., of John T. Scopes, who had taught his biology students about Darwin's theory of evolution. "Legislators might go on passing anti-evolution laws," Allen wrote, "and in the hinterlands the pious might still keep their religion locked in a science-proof compartment of their minds; but civilized opinion everywhere had regarded the Dayton trial with amazement and amusement, and the slow drift away from fundamentalist certainty continued."

This was a serious historical misjudgment, as most recently demonstrated by the renewed determination of anti-evolution crusaders - buoyed by conservative gains in state and local elections - to force public school science classes to give equal time to religiously based speculation about the origins of life. These challenges to evolution range from old-time biblical literalism, insisting that the universe and man were created in seven days, to the newer "intelligent design," which maintains that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator.

Kansas, where evolution opponents regained control of the state board of education in November, is likely to be the first battleground. Proposals to modify the state's recommended science curriculum with alternatives to Darwinian evolution will be an issue at statewide public hearings scheduled in February. In Georgia last week, a federal judge ordered a suburban Atlanta school board to remove stickers labeling evolution "a theory, not a fact" from high school biology textbooks, but an appeal seems likely. Other states where the teaching of evolution is on the 2005 legislative or judicial calendar include Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

Many liberals mistakenly believe that these controversies are largely a product of the post-1980 politicization of the Christian right. In fact, the elected anti-evolutionists on local and state school boards today are the heirs of eight decades of fundamentalist campaigning against Darwinism through back-door pressure on textbook publishers and school officials. Even efforts to cloak creationism with the words "science" and "scientific" - as in "creation science" - is an old tactic, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's boasting about "scientific communism."

More sophisticated proponents of intelligent design, those who are religiously conservative but not insistent on literal adherence to the biblical creation story, use anti-Darwinist arguments from a tiny minority of scientists to bolster their case for a creator. Last month, a group of parents in Dover, Penn., filed the first lawsuit to address the issue, challenging the local school board's contention that "intelligent design" is a scientific rather than a religious theory and, therefore, does not violate the separation of church and state.

At the beginning of the 20th century, however, America was well on its way to an accommodation between science and mainstream religion, now a fait accompli in the rest of the developed world, that pleases neither atheists nor theocrats manqués but works for almost everyone else. A growing number of Americans accepted both evolution and religion but considered it the responsibility of the church, not public schools, to sort out the role of God. This view was expressed in 1904 by Maynard M. Metcalf, a zoologist and a liberal Christian, who praised the move to exclude religious speculation from the teaching of life sciences.

The Scopes trial changed all that. Instead of being the nail in the coffin of creationism as many believe, the trial undermined the emerging accommodation between religion and science by intensifying the fundamentalists' conviction that acceptance of evolution would inevitably weaken any type of faith.

When the 24-year-old Scopes was charged with violating a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution, his conviction by a jury (later overturned on a technicality) was a foregone conclusion. Clarence Darrow, the nation's most famous lawyer and most famous agnostic, turned a jury defeat into a public relations victory (at least among scientists and intellectuals) by goading William Jennings Bryan, who was assisting the prosecution, into taking the stand as an expert witness on the Bible.

Bryan, in the view of the Northern press, made a fool of himself. Opponents of evolution, however, lauded Bryan, and the press's ridicule of their hero helped to create the enduring fundamentalist resentment of secular science and secular government that has become such a conspicuous feature of our culture.

Between the Scopes trial and the early 1930's, "science-proof" fundamentalists pressured publishers into excising discussions of evolution - and often the word itself - from biology textbooks. The nature of that success is literally illustrated by a change between the 1921 first edition of "Biology for Beginners," a standard text by Truman Moon, and the second edition, published in 1926. The 1921 edition appeared with a portrait of Darwin on the frontispiece. Five years later, Darwin had been replaced by a drawing of the human digestive tract.

Texas, then as now one of the largest textbook purchasers, led the drive to extirpate evolution. "I am a Christian mother," said Gov. Miriam Ferguson of Texas." "And I am not going to let that kind of rot go into Texas textbooks." Mrs. Ferguson personally censored textbooks while presiding over the statehouse from 1924 to 1926. Censorship was soon institutionalized in a state commission that scrutinized all potential textbooks.

The caution inspired by such pressure extended beyond the Bible Belt and persisted for decades. In 1959, the Harvard University paleontologist George G. Simpson (a bête noire on creationist Web sites today) noted that most American high school science texts relegated evolution to a separate, optional section.

Perhaps the most insidious effect of the campaign against evolution has been avoidance of the subject by teachers, who, whatever their convictions, want to forestall trouble with fundamentalist parents. Recent surveys of high school biology teachers have found that avoidance of evolution is common among instructors throughout the nation.

The singular achievement of the fundamentalist minority has been to render evolution controversial enough to silence many teachers who know better. Only now, when the religious right is no longer satisfied with avoidance but is demanding that schools add anti-Darwinist intelligent design to the curriculum, are defenders of evolution fighting back against the intimidation that has worked so well since the premature declaration of the death of fundamentalism in the 1920's.

Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York, is the author of "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism."

Mixiboi · #2 (**permalink**) 08-24-2008, 06:38 PM

Because I didn't want to make up another topic:

Once again the New York Times:

A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ed...th&oref=slogin

Quote:

David Campbell switched on the overhead projector and wrote “Evolution” in the rectangle of light on the screen.

He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew from years of teaching high school in this Jacksonville suburb, had been raised to take the biblical creation story as fact. His gaze rested for a moment on Bryce Haas, a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium.

“If I do this wrong,” Mr. Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, “I’ll lose him.”

In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.

Quote:

In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

Quote:

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.

With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan. How they fare may bear on whether a new generation of Americans embraces scientific evidence alongside religious belief.

“If you see something you don’t understand, you have to ask ‘why?’ or ‘how?’ ” Mr. Campbell often admonished his students at Ridgeview High School.

Yet their abiding mistrust in evolution, he feared, jeopardized their belief in the basic power of science to explain the natural world — and their ability to make sense of it themselves

Mixiboi · #3 (**permalink**) 08-24-2008, 06:42 PM

/best things out of the article right here:

Quote:

“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”

Quote:

“I think a big reason evolutionists believe what they believe is they don’t want to have to be ruled by God,” said Josh Rou, 17.

Quote:

“Evolution is telling you that you’re like an animal,” Bryce agreed. “That’s why people stand strong with Christianity, because it teaches people to lead a good life and not do wrong."

Quote:

“I’ll watch the Discovery Channel and say ‘Ooh, that’s interesting,’ ” he said. “But there’s a difference between thinking something is interesting and believing it.”

Quote:

The last question on the test Mr. Campbell passed out a week later asked students to explain two forms of evidence supporting evolutionary change and natural selection.

“I refuse to answer,” Bryce wrote. “I don’t believe in this.”

Yeah....I'm glad we live in a country that is so diverse...

steco · #4 (**permalink**) 08-24-2008, 09:52 PM

The debate is stupid and hurts us as a nation. This thread reminded me of a paragraph I just read by Frank Rich talking about China's growing power and advancement....

Quote:

But the unsettling subtext of the Olympics has been as resonant for Americans as the Phelps triumph. You couldn’t watch NBC’s weeks of coverage without feeling bombarded by an ascendant China whose superior cache of gold medals and dazzling management of the Games became a proxy for its spectacular commercial and cultural prowess in the new century. Even before the Olympics began, a July CNN poll found that 70 percent of Americans fear China’s economic might — about as many as find America on the wrong track. Americans watching the Olympics could not escape the reality that China in particular and Asia in general will continue to outpace our country in growth while we remain mired in stagnancy and debt (much of it held by China).

How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home. We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars. (In China, they’re too busy exploiting scientific advances for competitive advantage to reopen settled debates about Darwin.) Americans must band together for change before the new century leaves us completely behind.

geoffrobinson · #5 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 12:04 AM

The worst thing which could happen to the Darwinists is to teach Darwinism fully and completely.

From the utter failure to get any even remotely reasonable naturalistic abiogenesis account to detailing the genetic code to finding a microscopic world of complex machines in the cell to millions and millions of generations of malaria and e coli bacteria showing not much going on in terms of Darwinians process actually creating something (using the actual scientific method of observation)...it isn't going well for Darwinism.

Oh sure, Darwinism still holds sway. But that's because they a priori don't allow any possibility of intelligent agency.

On the cosmology front, as opposed to biology, it has gotten fantastically bad for the naturalist. People have come to recognize that our universe is so fine-tuned to allow for life, they are starting to posit zillions upon zillions of universes (the multiverse hypothesis) in order to get around the Intelligent Design/theistic implications.

Since Darwinists have confidence, I fully encourage them to fully teach their position.

LardBaron · #6 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 02:13 PM

I can't believe it hasn't sunk in yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

The worst thing which could happen to the Darwinists is to teach Darwinism fully and completely.

Darwinism(evolutionary theory) is a account of how life evolved. You may not like it, you may wish to label it evil but, it is merely dispassionate description. And, if you are angry because people have used it to justify there evil deeds, it the fault of those people alone. Truth can be subverted for bad purposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

From the utter failure to get any even remotely reasonable naturalistic abiogenesis account to detailing the genetic code

Abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory. How many times does this have to be mentioned before you get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

to finding a microscopic world of complex machines in the cell to millions and millions of generations of malaria and e coli bacteria showing not much going on in terms of Darwinians process actually creating something (using the actual scientific method of observation)...it isn't going well for Darwinism.

I haven't seen a lawn mover give birth to a toaster either, so I am with you on that one. I don't believe I'll see that day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

Oh sure, Darwinism still holds sway. But that's because they a priori don't allow any possibility of intelligent agency.

Natural science is based on things that can be observed. Sure supernatural stuff could be involved but there is no way to observe it. I am sure you know this too but you'll probably keep on repeating it. You really cannot define what god can or cannot do or why he/she/it does or doesn't do it because there is not data. It is waste of time to speculate on the supernatural.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

On the cosmology front, as opposed to biology, it has gotten fantastically bad for the naturalist. People have come to recognize that our universe is so fine-tuned to allow for life, they are starting to posit zillions upon zillions of universes (the multiverse hypothesis) in order to get around the Intelligent Design/theistic implications.

Fine tuned = it exists in mindbogglingly complex way that has been described by observations of natural characters.

What you seem to be saying is: A bunch of crazy stars moving in predictable and complex motion with a bunch of really heavy, empty, bright, dark, hot, and cold parts clearly implies a creator.

Oh, BTW it has nothing to do with evolution but, I am sure you are going to repeat it again in some other thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

Since Darwinists have confidence, I fully encourage them to fully teach their position.

That is refreshing but, I am skeptical that this means you would like the theological non-science of ID/creationism to be taught alongside science.

Mixiboi · #7 (**permalink**) 08-27-2008, 02:45 AM

How about we all sit down and watch the Science Channel?

geoffrobinson · #8 (**permalink**) 08-27-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

Abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory. How many times does this have to be mentioned before you get it.

This is a distinction promulgated to get around an intractable problem. If you follow chemicals evolving from non-life to life and you want to draw a distinction at some point, fine. But that doesn't mean that the underlying naturalism which undergirds evolution is up to task for figuring out a remotely plausible Origin of Life scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

I haven't seen a lawn mover give birth to a toaster either, so I am with you on that one. I don't believe I'll see that day.

Natural science is based on things that can be observed. Sure supernatural stuff could be involved but there is no way to observe it. I am sure you know this too but you'll probably keep on repeating it. You really cannot define what god can or cannot do or why he/she/it does or doesn't do it because there is not data. It is waste of time to speculate on the supernatural.

And this relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Intelligent Design. The ID movement is trying, not just in biology, to figure out ways to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent causes. It leaves the "why" questions alone for other disciplines like theology and philosophy.

The fact of the matter is that other disciplines like archeology and forensics do this type of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

Fine tuned = it exists in mindbogglingly complex way that has been described by observations of natural characters.

What you seem to be saying is: A bunch of crazy stars moving in predictable and complex motion with a bunch of really heavy, empty, bright, dark, hot, and cold parts clearly implies a creator.

Oh, BTW it has nothing to do with evolution but, I am sure you are going to repeat it again in some other thread.

No, it isn't completely pertinent to biological evolution but it is pertinent to Intelligent Design. Given the title of this thread ("so-called Intelligent Design") it is to show that the ID movement isn't a bunch of stupidity.

But the fine-tuning does imply a Creator. If it didn't, we should ask all those scientists positing the Multiverse hypothesis when they explicitly state it is to get around the implications of a Creator involved in fine-tuning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

That is refreshing but, I am skeptical that this means you would like the theological non-science of ID/creationism to be taught alongside science.

Again, I object to the claim of "theological non-science." If that's the case, Darwinian evolution shouldn't be taught because it is undergirded by a philosophy with a religious point of view.

But on a practical note, I would teach Darwinism because it can be shown to be inadequate the more fully people have the facts about the subject matter and not just relying on a priestly scientific class for their information. I wouldn't teach ID because I wouldn't trust the teachers (many who would be opponents) to understand the nuances nor be able to teach it correctly.

LardBaron · #9 (**permalink**) 08-27-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

This is a distinction promulgated to get around an intractable problem. If you follow chemicals evolving from non-life to life and you want to draw a distinction at some point, fine. But that doesn't mean that the underlying naturalism which undergirds evolution is up to task for figuring out a remotely plausible Origin of Life scenario.

Actually, it is a distinction that must be pointed out to the cdesign proponentsists repeatedly. Your post tried to tie evolution theory to abiogenesis. Given time you'd likely try to say that Darwinism leads to genocide. It is tiresome that you link the two in an attempt to support your anti-evolution argument.

Abiogenesis it one theory on the origins of life, perhaps you should brush-up on the other pieces of the puzzle. There is a bunch of data that actually supports abiogensis as a plausible mechanism. Your personal incredulity is really the only thing standing in your way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

And this relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Intelligent Design. The ID movement is trying, not just in biology, to figure out ways to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent causes. It leaves the "why" questions alone for other disciplines like theology and philosophy.

The fact of the matter is that other disciplines like archeology and forensics do this type of thing.

The ID movement is trying to justify the insertion religion into public schools plain and simple. Possibly you mean to say archaeolgy and forensics make retrodictions on bases physical laws and observable facts. The probably don't coment on flabby terms such as 'intelligent causes' or 'fine tunning' if the universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

No, it isn't completely pertinent to biological evolution but it is pertinent to Intelligent Design. Given the title of this thread ("so-called Intelligent Design") it is to show that the ID movement isn't a bunch of stupidity.

The title of thread is a bit loaded. But ID is pretty much as useless as speculating whether the FSM can create a meatball so massive that he himself cannot move. You can't make predictions with it, you can't test it, you can't even define it in cohrent operational terms that don't amount to calling it 'magic'. And anyway, you only mention things extraneous to biological evolution to throw readers of the trail of your central thesis: evolution = godlessly evil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

But the fine-tuning does imply a Creator. If it didn't, we should ask all those scientists positing the Multiverse hypothesis when they explicitly state it is to get around the implications of a Creator involved in fine-tuning.

'Fine tuning' is your assessment based on the complexity of the universe. You alone, have contrived a term that implies that the universve is being acted upon by some organizing force. I think you'll have to come up with some citations or show some evidence that leads to your conclusion about 'fine tuning' otherwise, you're talking about hocus-pocus (and non-evolutionary hocus-pocus at that).

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson

Again, I object to the claim of "theological non-science." If that's the case, Darwinian evolution shouldn't be taught because it is undergirded by a philosophy with a religious point of view.

But on a practical note, I would teach Darwinism because it can be shown to be inadequate the more fully people have the facts about the subject matter and not just relying on a priestly scientific class for their information. I wouldn't teach ID because I wouldn't trust the teachers (many who would be opponents) to understand the nuances nor be able to teach it correctly.

This is completely silly. I (and others who accept biological evolution as fact) no more pray at the alter of the Ambulocetus than do people who accept gravitational theory pray that the gravitons keeps them from floating off into space. Your assertion is yours alone; it is an attempt to drag evolutionary science down to the same theological arena that ID occupies. ID, unlike evolutionary theory, has consistently failed to produce anything resembling science. ID is nothing more than the same argument that Paley failed to convince people with many years ago.

More to the point of the tread, I accept that you'd be willing to fully endorse the teaching Darwinism. I don't think that goes far enough though. I think modern evolutionary theory should be taught in schools. And, unfortunately, curriculum seems determined by how evolution makes school board members feel, rather that by what scientifically sound or scientifically correct.

geoffrobinson · #10 (**permalink**) 08-28-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

Actually, it is a distinction that must be pointed out to the cdesign proponentsists repeatedly. Your post tried to tie evolution theory to abiogenesis. Given time you'd likely try to say that Darwinism leads to genocide. It is tiresome that you link the two in an attempt to support your anti-evolution argument.

Abiogenesis it one theory on the origins of life, perhaps you should brush-up on the other pieces of the puzzle. There is a bunch of data that actually supports abiogensis as a plausible mechanism. Your personal incredulity is really the only thing standing in your way.

There is no plausible mechanism on the horizon for Origin of Life researchers. From everything I've read, they've got nothing but wish projections.

Here's my prediction:
The RNA, protein, metabolism, left-handed, cell membrane, minimum genetic code to allow for life chicken-and-egg problems are insurmountable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

The ID movement is trying to justify the insertion religion into public schools plain and simple. Possibly you mean to say archaeolgy and forensics make retrodictions on bases physical laws and observable facts. The probably don't coment on flabby terms such as 'intelligent causes' or 'fine tunning' if the universe.

Since I communicate with people in the ID movement, I can speak with actual knowledge that their intention is not to inject religion into the public schools. But you can believe any conspiracy you wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

The title of thread is a bit loaded. But ID is pretty much as useless as speculating whether the FSM can create a meatball so massive that he himself cannot move. You can't make predictions with it, you can't test it, you can't even define it in cohrent operational terms that don't amount to calling it 'magic'. And anyway, you only mention things extraneous to biological evolution to throw readers of the trail of your central thesis: evolution = godlessly evil.

No. My thesis is that it is scientifically untenable, especially as our scientific knowledge increases, which is only holding sway due to religious and philosophical assumptions as well sociological pressures.

Theism does not require evolution to be true or not for its validity. Atheism has no other choice, so atheists hold on to it as the data for pure mindless processes crumbles around them.

The real problem is not so much with evolution. There are elements of evolutionary theory which are true and some which were reasonable before we learned more about biology and biochemistry. The real problem is the incorrect philosophy which tries to prop up the whole thing from beginning to end because we need an atheistic creation myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

'Fine tuning' is your assessment based on the complexity of the universe. You alone, have contrived a term that implies that the universve is being acted upon by some organizing force. I think you'll have to come up with some citations or show some evidence that leads to your conclusion about 'fine tuning' otherwise, you're talking about hocus-pocus (and non-evolutionary hocus-pocus at that).

You should read Dr. Paul Davies, famed Oxford physicist: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=U...&creative=9325

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

This is completely silly. I (and others who accept biological evolution as fact) no more pray at the alter of the Ambulocetus than do people who accept gravitational theory pray that the gravitons keeps them from floating off into space. Your assertion is yours alone; it is an attempt to drag evolutionary science down to the same theological arena that ID occupies. ID, unlike evolutionary theory, has consistently failed to produce anything resembling science. ID is nothing more than the same argument that Paley failed to convince people with many years ago.

Counting noses doesn't mean that Paley was off-base or that Hume didn't have errors.

But back to the point of my original position. ID does not teach a particular theological position but it does have philosophical and theological implications. If it violates the 1st amendment, so does Darwinism since Darwinism has theological and philosophical implications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LardBaron

More to the point of the tread, I accept that you'd be willing to fully endorse the teaching Darwinism. I don't think that goes far enough though. I think modern evolutionary theory should be taught in schools. And, unfortunately, curriculum seems determined by how evolution makes school board members feel, rather that by what scientifically sound or scientifically correct.

I'm fully in favor of teaching Darwinism and, more importantly, the scientific details of how things actually work. But I don't want Darwinists to sneak in their naturalism through the back door. Nor do I want them to appeal to their normal "Darwin of the Gaps" reasoning. "Trust us we'll find a solution to such and such because otherwise naturalism wouldn't be true."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Franklin Conference on School Design	Eagle Scout	Architecture and Urban Planning	4	06-11-2005 10:42 PM