LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Anybody else tune in PBS tonight and watch Nova? Fascinating, "fair and balanced" discussion of the Kitzmuller vs Dover Board of Education case about the attempt to teach "Intelligent Design" in the public schools as an alternative scientific theory to evolution.

At the risk of alienating my religious friends here, I always felt that ID was simply a new label on creationism, which is exactly what Judge Jones concluded in his decision. That he received death threats and was so viciously attacked for his decision surprised me greatly. I thought this had all been settled fifty years ago in the Scopes case, but then those who believe in the bible as literal truth are not easily shaken from their beliefs or their determination to prevail on young and impressionable minds. Nova made crystal clear tonight that ID is, without the slightest shred of doubt, simply a slick re-packaging of religious dogma with a scientific sounding name by those who refuse to give up their opposition to any science that runs contrary to what is written in the Old Testament. Basically ID is an attempt to "swift boat" tested and verifiable science as a lie.

I am not opposed to teaching religion. I went to an Episcopalian prep school and had to take all sorts of theology classes while studying in depth all the world's major religions and their respective teachings. I also went to Sunday school and studied Torah in preparation for my own for Bar Mitzvah. I believe that studying religion has its place, perhaps even in the public schools. But it does greatly bother me that so many people -- including President George W. Bush -- have stated that intelligent design should be taught in public schools alongside evolution as an actual scientific alternative -- which it most definitely is NOT. Take the clever packaging off and call it creationism, and teach it in the Sunday schools. Exercise your First Amendment rights and state your disbelief in evolution, if you must. But DON'T try to convince me creationism or it's clever pseudonym "intelligent design" is actual science.

Comments?

Yeahh Dan stirring the pot. What's next week, blond or brunette?

Since religion is a "choice" (ish), I think it should be left out of public schools.

I mean, there are several major religions....but do the rest get left out because they don't have a statistical prominence? And who teaches it? I don't trust 2 different churches/mosques/synagogues of the same religion to teach the same thing from their respective books, let alone some public school teacher that got a C in world history in college. The schools can't find suitable people to teach in the first place, so adding "you need to find someone to teach intelligent design" is a rather scary thought. And "intelligent design" is the vaguest, most laughable attempt at saying "god" I can think of. And since it's apparently not ok to say "god" in the pledge of allegiance....it's somehow ok to teach that a god...excuse me...intelligent designer is something of worth to be taught in schools? I think some evolution of thought needs to take place in schools.

Which part of evolution scares intelligent design folks so much that they HAVE to somehow get religion into people's minds...evolving from bacteria....or evolving as humans to be able to think through such hypocrisy?

(I went to both private catholic and public schools)

EDIT::

The judge received death threats? Sounds like those people trying to push creationism need to actually read to stuff they're so adamant about since apparently they have no clue . I don't think ole JC would like people trying to force his name with death threats.

The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." cite religioustolerance.org

hmmm...

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp

not being able to deal with obvious discrepancies in your own thinking is not a reason to piss on a perfectly good philosophy... I think wikepedia will be gaining a new defense mechanism called unintellectualization in the next few days

Beta wrote:The judge received death threats? Sounds like those people trying to push creationism need to actually read to stuff they're so adamant about since apparently they have no clue . I don't think ole JC would like people trying to force his name with death threats.

Yes, and he still does today, forcing his family to receive continuing FBI protection. Judge Jones was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush after being nominated by ex-Senator Rick Santorum. He is a Republican, of course, and was presumed (incorrectly) to be pre-disposed to side with the Dover School Board on this case. Oops, he actually weighed the evidence and ruled on the case as a matter of law. How dare he! He is supposed to be a "strict constructionist" -- which by the way is another of those clever right-wing pseudonyms for a judge who agrees with them politically. In his decision, Judge Jones actually went far beyond simply ruling that Dover's introduction of ID and it's textbook "Pandas and People" into the public school 9th Grade science class was unconstitutional. He stated flatly that ID was creationism and that it was inherently a religious theory and not science, and that it had no place in the science curriculum.

Had Judge Jones been appointed by Clinton, he would probably be dismissed as just another liberal, "activist" judge, rather than as a "strict constructionist". This obviously really galls the religious right, who likely feel a deep sense of betrayal from one counted on to be one of their own, rather than expected opposition from some godless lefty.

Dan Wishengrad wrote:Had Judge Jones been appointed by Clinton, he would probably be dismissed as just another liberal, "activist" judge, rather than as a "strict constructionist". This obviously really galls the religious right, who likely feel a deep sense of betrayal from one counted on to be one of their own, rather than expected opposition from some godless lefty.

True dat. IMHO I think religion does NOT belong in the science classroom. It belongs in the philosophy classroom if it is going to be in a public school. It seems rather (completely) contradictory to say "Here's why this happens, in this experiment you can see that such and such blah blah blah is proven/disproven"...then say "ok class today we're going to talk about how to prove pH balances in this beaker by using experiments....then we'll talk about intelligent design...which is proven by simply having faith".

I shoulda pulled that out in Physics II, "Dr Lee, I believe my vastly incorrect answer is true...not because I can actually prove it....but because I have faith in it being true".

LOL, nice try Joe, but I'll bet your Physics prof would not buy that, either.

It's also like that classic confrontation between Jack and Locke in season 1 of "Lost":

Locke: You're a man of science, right, Jack?

Jack: Yes I am

Locke: Well I'm not

Jack: What are you then?

Locke: I'm a man of faith

Of course Locke HAS to be a man of faith, cuz the island cured his paralysis and also let him miraculously heal after being center-shot in the heart and left to die later. Uh oh... maybe my favorite t.v. show is actually some right-wing plot to brain-wash me into being a believer in Intelligent Design?!?!!?!?

Dan Wishengrad wrote:LOL, nice try Joe, but I'll bet your Physics prof would not buy that, either.

It's also like that classic confrontation between Jack and Locke in season 1 of "Lost":

Locke: You're a man of science, right, Jack?

Jack: Yes I am

Locke: Well I'm not

Jack: What are you then?

Locke: I'm a man of faith

Of course Locke HAS to be a man of faith, cuz the island cured his paralysis and also let him miraculously heal after being center-shot in the heart and left to die later. Uh oh... maybe my favorite t.v. show is actually some right-wing plot to brain-wash me into being a believer in Intelligent Design?!?!!?!?

There's a lot of religious symbolism in Lost, but I guess I'm not playing close enough attention to tell you what it all means.

Here's the thing I don't get:

Science actually works really well. It does a fantastic job of explaining lots of stuff, and it acknowledges the things it can't explain. It has clear rules and logical consistency. Intelligent design punts all of this and just says, "Well, it's this way because God made it so."

If you're religious, that's fine. But if you are, what's wrong with the explanation that God created a universe that obeys certain scientific principles?

I'm going to make this brief mainly cause I should be leaving for work about 5 mins ago.

I'm currently in an introduction to anthropology class (pretty much human evolution) which has sparked several questions for me. Coming from a christian household, I approached my father, who is a highly educated man with in a science field who has done plenty of research into this topic, with several questions about evolution vs. the christian view of creationism. He was able to provide me with several facts and questions that make sense and raise questions in evolution. Not everything about christian creationism is about just believing, as much of the religion has moved that way recently. There are several educated people who have formulated cases for creationism with good points. I still have my questions and doubts on both sides of the fence, so please do not say that I am a christian fanatic or anything, because I simply am not.

Make that 15 mins ago now...

Dan, didn't spell check tell you it's judgment and not judgement? Sorry for being "that guy" pointing out a spelling mistake.

About the show, I randomly was flipping through and watched about 45 minutes of the show and then realized that I had just watched 45 minutes of the show and was mesmerized by the arguments being put forth. Very intriguing on both sides. Was I wrong in seeing that Darwin's great great grandson was arguing for Intelligent Design? Ironic.

Intelligent Design is a euphemism for creationism, but when we get down to it I think this goes back to freedom of religion. People get so caught up in saying you can't teach religious viewpoints. However, at the same time if you teach just one viewpoint, aren't you therefore ignoring an infinite amount of opposing viewpoints? In order to draw sound conclusions I believe students must be exposed to as many ideas as possible, regardless of theoretical foundation, so that you can draw your own conclusions.

I personally feel that Intelligent Design ignores evolutionary record, but at the same time my curiosity is piqued by proponents for Intelligent Design on many levels. In the end the debate of creationism vs. evolution is useless because each side is fighting for only their opinion to be taught. Shouldn't we be fighting for all opinions to be taught regardless of theoretical (or religious) foundation? If we truly believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech I believe this is the only answer (however difficult it may be to implement )

TheBearcatHimself wrote:Dan, didn't spell check tell you it's judgment and not judgement? Sorry for being "that guy" pointing out a spelling mistake.

About the show, I randomly was flipping through and watched about 45 minutes of the show and then realized that I had just watched 45 minutes of the show and was mesmerized by the arguments being put forth. Very intriguing on both sides. Was I wrong in seeing that Darwin's great great grandson was arguing for Intelligent Design? Ironic.

Intelligent Design is a euphemism for creationism, but when we get down to it I think this goes back to freedom of religion. People get so caught up in saying you can't teach religious viewpoints. However, at the same time if you teach just one viewpoint, aren't you therefore ignoring an infinite amount of opposing viewpoints? In order to draw sound conclusions I believe students must be exposed to as many ideas as possible, regardless of theoretical foundation, so that you can draw your own conclusions.

I personally feel that Intelligent Design ignores evolutionary record, but at the same time my curiosity is piqued by proponents for Intelligent Design on many levels. In the end the debate of creationism vs. evolution is useless because each side is fighting for only their opinion to be taught. Shouldn't we be fighting for all opinions to be taught regardless of theoretical (or religious) foundation? If we truly believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech I believe this is the only answer (however difficult it may be to implement )

Well said. Growing up in a very Catholic household, I was always bothered by the fact that religion could not even be brought up in my public high school without someone's parents threatening to sue. I had an honors Philosophy class once where we learning about the history of the world and its origins, where all viewpoints were taken into account--> Creationism, Evolution, Buddhist thought, etc. A week into the section, we had to abruptly stop because some student thought she was being preached to.

I just think its very unfortunate that the education system has been put in this bind by fanatics on both sides, and the only people losing out are the students in the middle. I think teaching both Evolution and Creation not as fact, but as possible theories with evidence that backs and contradicts their theory, is the best way to go. Why not present all the information, and have students formulate their own beliefs?

Will, not sure what program you watched but Matthew Chapman (Darwin's great-great-Grandson) appeared near the end of Nova and most certainly was NOT on the side of the creationists. Quite the contrary.

It is also fine if you believe that evolution is only an opinion (your words) and not a time-tested and verified scientific theory about the origin of the species. Of course since so much modern science is based, in whole or in part, on Darwinian theory than you must also believe entire fields of scientific discipline like genetics, molecular biology etc. etc. are only opinions, too. What exactly was your major there at Willamette? PLEASE tell me you were not pre-med!

Now please excuse me while I run spell check over this reply.

scooter wrote: Why not present all the information, and have students formulate their own beliefs?

If you bothered to watch the show you would have your answer: Creationism or "Intelligent Design" is NOT science!!! It doesn't meet ANY of the objective criteria to be taught as such, as Judge Jones concluded after all the evidence was weighed, and to the dismay of those who want to return us to the Dark Ages of un-enlightenment. You can't teach good science side-by-side with "bad science" and tell 9th graders to make up their own minds.

If you want to teach the bible, go ahead do so in religion class. But don't re-package the same creationist arguments to sound like actual science and try to pass it off as such.

Dan Wishengrad wrote: Creationism or "Intelligent Design" is NOT science!!!

Neither is global warming. But that hasn't stopped so many people from spreading that as gospel.

Sonny wrote:

Dan Wishengrad wrote: Creationism or "Intelligent Design" is NOT science!!!

Neither is global warming. But that hasn't stopped so many people from spreading that as gospel.

Sorry, Sonny, I haven't been keeping up on my gospel. Is global warming NOT revealed in the Book of Revelations?!?!?!?

I'm not debating the fact that evolution has happened, as it most certainly has, nor am I advocating that the Bible is the be-all-end-all decider on important matters. I view the Bible to more or less be a book on living morally and how human's should treat one another, and not a fact book to be quoted to serve a very specific point.

At the same time, I have a real hard time believing that a world as vast and complex as this appeared by itself.

Going way back to high school physics, I think I remember something about matter or energy not being able to create itself. This is a pretty basic scientific principle. So if nothing can create itself, then how did the world get here? Big Bang Theory? Random gasses and rocks forming? where did those gasses and rocks come from? Go back as far as you want, but I think eventually there has to a point where something has ALWAYS existed.