Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of negative backlash on the right to this story about Bush supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. From Yahoo News:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.” (my emphasis)
While I don’t believe Intelligent Design should be taught as a comparable theory to evolution in science classes (it’s not scientifically falsifiable¹, first of all, which means it isn’t a scientic theory, regardless of how vehemently the anthropocentic proponents of irreducible complexity insist it is—and anyway, it addresses questions about first causes that fall outside the proper purview of scientific inquiry), I nevertheless do believe that addressing the field of ID theory in science classes provides a perfect opportunity to show how ID and evolution do not necessarily contradict one another, and that—if evolution is taught properly—the controversy itself disappears, except as a propaganda tool ginned up either by creationists or materialists who like to use it as a rhetorical club against their ideological opponents.
Similarly, I have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in the context of questions concerning the origin of life—which, whether the President meant to do so or not, is in fact the context into which he placed the question. The origin of life—or first cause—is properly asked within the realm of philosophy or religious studies. And in that context, evolution is simply another theory (materialism) that competes with metaphysical theories that posit intent or active creation at some point in time (ID, Deism).
Personally, this CITIZEN JOURNALIST would have pressed the President on the question and asked him if he was indeed advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes specifically, and if so, how—and to what degree (in relation to microevolution? macro? how?). I would further follow-up and ask those on the right who have been so quick to howl over this vague news item if they support the teaching of the “origins of life” (which I take to be different than the evolution of life) in science classes. As it stands though—using my best Scalia-type textualism—what the president said is unproblematic and, on its face, at least, eminently reasonable.
Sorry to be so contrarian. But as everyone knows, protein wisdom is nothing if not measured in his criticisms.
LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!
¹Leon H notes that Natural Theology is “a book […] entirely filled answering the questions of falsification that arise when considering whether an obviously designed object has a designer.” I haven’t read it, so I can’t comment on the rigor of those answers. However Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design uses Paley’s book as a jumping off point.
****
update: a different (and more traditional) contrarian view here.
****
update 2: Glenn posts the transcript of Bush’s remarks, which do little to shed any more light on his intentions, or on his understanding of the lines of demarcation in the debate between ID and evolution as either scientific (only evolution fits) or philosophical (both ID and evolution, in the form of materialism, fit such a description):
Q Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people—so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting—you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.
The answer, of course, would depend on whether the questioner is asking about evolution as a theory of first causes.
Seems to me the interlocutor is maybe less nuanced on the subject than is the President…
****
update 3: From the left, here’s the take from Crooks and Liars.
****
update 4: The debate—and a search for compromise—continues here.
I have clearly (but not succinctly) expressed my view on the matter.
Man, I can hardly wait to see Bill’s next “email with Jeff” post.
Leave evolution in Science class. Leave creationism, intelligent design, etc. to Theology class (as if you could ever get Theology added to the public scholl curriculum in today’s world).
Don’t you think to do so simply fuels a controversy that doesn’t exist? I mean, ID isn’t science. And evolution (the scientific part) isn’t a theory of first causes.
Why not make that clear?
I have no problem with the description of ID being given alongside evolution in reference to the origin of life. That does not mean that the science of evolution must always be linked with the teaching of the divine.
Create an entire series of classes, “Origin(s) of Life”. Everything from evolution to creationism to whatever.
Followed by the class “What next?” to cover the afterlife.
I am trying to find a story I read about Ben Franklin and a Parisian atheist friend of his. After several discussions regarding the this, and the atheists obvious aversion to the notion of intelligent design, Franklin supposedly presented him with a clockwork model of the Solar System. The Frenchman marvelled over the craftsmanship and asked Franklin: “Who made this?” Franklin smiled and said: “No one”
Don’t know if it is a true story, and personally I lean toward evolution, but I thought it was a good yarn.
Thanks for the mention.
My WordPress excerpted this exact phrase from your post in the trackback:
“… From Yahoo Newsresident Bush …”
A fitting title.
I’ll go with whichever theory can actually explain both a dancing armadillo and someone who is capable of discussing deep political philosophies and Helen Thomas’ colon.
Okay, I’m Agnostic (go ahead and prove I’m not). If Intelligent Design is going to be taught in school, it should be taught in a theology class, not in a science class. One is dealing with what we know as fact, the other is taught as what could have been.
Further more if the public schools are going to teach Intelligent Design, they should teach it along side Buddhism, Catholicism, and all the other ism’s out there.
I personally have a hard time believing that an omnipotent being created this petri dish we call home, just so that He/Her/It could have a bunch of Morons to bow down and worship Him/Her/It. I do however believe that it could have been done for pure entertainment value.
That doesn’t mean that the golden rule is not a good thing.
Okay, now I’m going to go clean my aquarium because it’s hard being god to a bunch of fish. Especially since they don’t seem to be into the worship thing. Well at least I haven’t seen any sacrificed virgins yet. They do provide loads of entertainment though.
Jeff, I perhaps don’t quite understand your comment #4.
Since “ID isn’t science” it should belong in Theolgy class, and since evolution “isn’t a theory of first causes” it belongs in science class.
I don’t see this fueling a non existent controversy.
But my point is, the two aren’t inherently in opposition, and to mention that certain “scientists” are studying Intelligent Design is a perfect opportunity to teach what IS science and what is Not—as well as to note the scientific limits of evolution’s scope.
We are, after all, interested in teaching, first and foremost, and this strikes me as a perfect opportunity to dispel all sorts of misconceptions that would benefit BOTH ID (as a metaphysical worlview) and evolutionary science.
I agree. Perhaps take it a step further than Bush is proposing and add evolution and ID to both Theology and Science class to point out that there are both metaphysical and scientific aspects to each.
However, as it is now (I think), Theology doesn’t exist at all in public schools (certainly not when I was there, oh so many years ago) and it seems like to have it added to the curriculum would be much more difficult than doing what Bush has proposed.
Like there are theology classes in public schools?
While I didn’t get the vapors over Bush’s statement, your semantical parsing of Bush’s intent blithely skips over the context that the current debate centers around individuals wanting to insert ID specifically into a science curriculum and pass it off as science. Bush’s words may not reflect that specifically, but it’s perfectly reasonable for advocates on either side to interpret it as an endorsement for ID in science class, as that’s what 99.9999999999999% of the rest of the world is arguing about, and certainly what the reporter intended when the question was phrased.
And thus, while you may think you are proposing a common sense solution (“look everyone, just point out how they don’t contradict each other, as evolution doesn’t deal with ‘first cause!’ Everyone will get along and be friends! And have CAKE AND LOVE EACH OTHER!”), it’s actually terribly naive.
ID’ers reject evolution and don’t view it as a complement to ID. Evolutionists reject ID. Both sides misrepresent each other’s position, and yet you think you’ve arrived at some common sense solution no one has thought of?
Can both subjects be discussed in a theology class? You bet. Does ID belong in a science class? No way.
Now do me a favor and try and FIND a theology class in a public school.
Get back to me when you’ve found it.
It’s been a while for me, but we had both science and a philosophy in high school (though philosophy was an elective, if I remember correctly; but it beat sewing throw pillows).
See above?
I wish people would take the time to learn that the Theory of Biological Evolution says absolutely NOTHING about the “first cause” of life on earth or the origin of the universe.
Basically, all the TBE says that all of the life forms on earth came from a single common ancestor via natural selection and random mutation.
The magical pink unicorn riding sky daddy could have introduced the first common ancestor of life on earth via squeezing a log out of his bunghole, but that wouldn’t change the fact that the best mechanistic explanation for the variety of life on earth–both past and present–developed via the mechanism of evolution.
Well, Bill, you ignore the fact that Bush was asked, and that his answer (see the transcript) appears to be carefully parsed.
That I noticed and didn’t jump on the “let’s tar Bush with the fundie brush” bandwagon doesn’t make me naive. It’s just means I’m not looking to pin my feelings of intellectual superiority on a poorly written argument and a carefully answered question.
WyldPirate:
I think my post makes that point.
That I noticed and didn’t jump on the “let’s tar Bush with the fundie brush†bandwagon doesn’t make me naive. It’s just means I’m not looking to pin my feelings of intellectual superiority on a poorly written argument and a carefully answered question.
Alosersayswhat?
Bill from INDC: “ID’ers reject evolution and don’t view it as a complement to ID.”
That’s not true. ID’ers reject RANDOMNESS as part of evolution. They do not reject the idea that biological things change over time. ID views biological change as directed, not random nor the product of “survival of the fittest.” As evidence of the direction, ID looks to fast-changing symbiotic relationships between animals/plants. Evolution does not do a good job at explaining those relationships, nor does it explain macro v. micro evolution all that well.
Stop mischaracterizing the debate. You’re thinking of CREATIONISM, which is entirely different.
Serioulsy though, I agree that it’s nothing for people to get so upset over. But both sides are going to take what they want from his comments.
Alosersayswhat?
Asked and answered.
…see what I did there…?
Good for you. I must take issue with the distinction you try to draw between Darwinism and ID—Darwinism is verifiable while ID is not. After enjoying a century of dogmatic protection within the biological and education establishments, Darwinists have yet to verify their theory, ie no evidence exists to suggest that inter-species mutation has ever occurred in the history of the world.
How long must a theory be permitted unsuccessfully to prove itself before we can reasonably say that it is unverifiable?
Sydney –
I am not mischaracterizing the debate. Many IDers, including the 40 or so I debated on my site, reject evolution.
Purely stated, ID is not creationism. Practically advocated, it is the new creationism to a whole lot of people.
ID as a general concept may simply reject randomness, but it’s application in most quarters – including public education in the state of Kansas – as evidenced by Kansas State board members and a majority of pro-ID witnesses in their hearings – serves as a contravention to evolution, not a complement.
Many ID’ers and most of ID’s vocal proponents do not accept that a designer created a single celled organism that evolved into a human being. This doesn’t even touch the fact that ID isn’t a science at all, as it works backwards from a strictly unknowable premise, instead of following true scientific method.
So, how about you stop mischaracterizing the debate.
Jeff’s post is the first rational one I’ve seen on this subject.
I’m baffled by the excitement on the right. I find what the President said to be unremarkable; he’s clear and correct on federalism—that it should be left to local school districts. He doesn’t suggest anywhere I see that it should be taught in science class. I agree it would have been very interesting to have had a journalist pose Jeff’s clarifying questions, but I don’t think they can be simply answered in a sound-bite (or soundbyte) age.
Personally, I’m (rationally) convinced that classic Darwinism (in a gradualist sense) is wrong. Sorry to those who blithely assume it’s “fact”. But a Theory isn’t a fact or even a Law.
Does that mean I don’t believe in evolution? Quite the contrary; [on the above issue] I find Gould’s work persuasive, and the concept of punctuated equilibrium seems to fit many of the facts. So we modify the theory to support new facts; it’s the scientific method.
We abandon (or reduce emphasis) gradualism on the basis of fossil evidence, abandon orthogenesis thanks to Watson & Crick, etc. None of those changes mean the Theory is wrong; of course it is refined, tested, and retested. If it ends up succumbing to Occam’s Razor, then so be it.
ID is a hypothesis. A scientifically legitimate one, but for it to advance beyond the stage of hypothesis, there’d have to be ways to test it. Personally I can’t think of any. Ergo, it’s only worth in a science class is to be briefly mentioned as an untested hypothesis that persuades many.
On the other hand, in a theology/religion/origins of life class it certainly deserves at least equal rational consideration with any materialistic hypothesis. (I see no means of productively testing the hypothesis that evolution is the sole driving force in the origins and organization of life.)
Thanks for a thoughtful post, Jeff
Holmwood
Bill from INDC,
“Purely stated, ID is not creationism.”
I’m glad we agree.
“Practically advocated, it is the new creationism to a whole lot of people.”
That’s their problem.
“Many ID’ers and most of ID’s vocal proponents do not accept that a designer created a single celled organism that evolved into a human being.”
Then, by definition, they do not believe in intelligent design, but instead believe in creationism.
“This doesn’t even touch the fact that ID isn’t a science at all, as it works backwards from a strictly unknowable premise, instead of following true scientific method.”
Quite frankly, evolution’s proponents do this as well. But let’s not start a micro v. macro debate here.
“I agree that it’s nothing for people to get so upset over.”
Tell that to Instapundit, who apparrently finds no problem labeling Bush as some kind of slack-jawed yokel because he’s content to discuss a comparison of these concepts. This is a proxy for his, and others’, fight against religious conservatives. Look to his snarky comment on Leon Kass. I predict that stem-cells will be his Andrew Sullivan moment, whereupon he turns on the Right and everything else, because Reynolds can’t bear to grow old like his poor 91-year old grandmother, lest Wonkette no longer view him with longing.
Holmwood,
Indeed Jeff is to be commended for his sensible post. You also are to be commended for your rationality.
I wonder if you are not assuming the ultimate question. If, as IDers (full disclosure: I am among them) believe the explosions in the fossil record and the lack of incidence of mutation from one species to another cannot be explained other than through unverifiable theory, then both Darwinists and Iders posit unverifiable (call them “religious” perhaps) theories.
Beck’s irrefutable refutation of Intelligent Design “theory” in two words:
Helen Thomas.
Excellently put, Jeff.
I don’t expect it’ll get much play from the LiberIdiotarians who, even as we speak, are huffing and puffing, banging their chests and screaming “Theocracy!” at the top of their lungs.
Crucifixes and Holy Water may not work on vampires, but it sure as Hades works like a charm on the insecure LiberIdiotarians, forever deadly afraid that anybody might entertain ideas not canonized by Ayn Rand.
Given that the President made it clear that such decisions should be left in the hands of the local school districts, why should we care what he thinks on the matter? As long as he does nothing, does it really matter what he says, or for that matter, thinks about ID or evolution?
I don’t think the federalism angle was clear from the original news story, h/c. Which is yet another reason why I cautioned against jumping to conclusions.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable and wise to point to the limits of science in a public school science class, Bill. It should not be verboten to discuss ID with students as a theory in the context of first cause.
Of course, ID should not be allowed to swallow science classes altogether. Science is its own discipline and the scientific method should obviously be taught where it is applicable (as in the case of evolution). But theories that depart from hard and fast science are inevitable in a first-cause context and should be discussed frankly and freely–not shied away from due to a fear of public theology.
Physics cannot describe all that exists or may exist. At some point physical theories blend with the metaphysical–science meets philosophy meets theology. Artificial and government-enforced distinctions are asinine.
But I agree that in the immediate context of evolution, ID is not science but rather philosophy or theology, as it does not really purport to answer the “how” question, but actually seeks to address the motive, the why, behind it all. I think many intelligent ID believers accept the basic physical mechanisms described by the theory of evolution–mutation and selection. ID proponents just keep asking “why?” after the defenders of evolution think they’ve explained everything away. And at that point, it’s probably best to move the discussion to the Humanities wing of the campus.
There is a big problem for those who would idolize the designer of ID if they wish to eliminate randomness from evolution. That is, there is no difference on the genetic level between a useful adaptation and a birth defect. Only when the organism has come into being and tries to make its way in the environment can the mutation be seen to add or detract from fitness. This casts the creator as a blundering craftsmen that sweeps his mistakes under the carpet and says, “I meant to do that”, over his successes.
TW: eye, oddly fitting giving a trite ID argument
So many idiots, so little time.
In the first place, decisions about curriculum aren’t made by school districts, they’re made by state legislatures, but these decisions are constrained by the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
In the second, Bush was asked whether ID should be taught alongside evolution by natural selection as a competing theory, not who makes the decision.
Right now the federal courts have said that creationism can’t be taught in science classes because it’s a religious doctrine. ID was invented to circumvent this court ruling by recasting creationism in language that falls just outside the scope of the ruling. Hence they replace the term “God” with “Designer” and do a bunch of similar malarkey on the assumption that Darwin turns people away from the Baby Jesus.
ID’ers aren’t in agreement on the common origins concept or about how much of evolution is free-flowing and how much is directed by the Baby Jesus. This puts them in a world of hurt theologically because it makes the Baby Jesus potentially responsible for creating AIDS and smallpox.
Bush is a creationist, he’s made that clear several times. Creationists and ID’ers want to slip the Baby Jesus doctrine into biology classes in order to keep the teacher from discussing sex and dancing.
It’s a mistake to be all laissez faire about this shit, because it’s a one-way ticket to mullahcracy. Don’t tolerate creationism, and don’t tolerate ID. Keep science classes on topic and relevant to the mission, and leave the Baby Jesus for Sunday School.
When will you people learn?
You’re the very paragon of CITIZEN JOURNALIST integrity, Jeff. Fortunately, I am not so constrained. Lucky me.
If ID was true, I WOULD HAVE PIE!
I have no pie.
QED
Right on time. Hardly had time to ring the bell this time.
Yep, you’ve hardly got time to gin up your lies when some asshole comes along and states the obvious. We’re onto your Baby Jesus shit, Misha.
And for my next trick, I’ll convert you at swordpoint, burn down your house and send your womenfolk off to convent.
Don’t make me wave my crucifix at you, Dick, you know how it burrrrrrnnnnnssssss…
You don’t scare me, Bible-pounder, I drink gin and holy water cocktails for breakfast.
Scientific Brahmanism in all its guises is not ‘science’ at all but a metaphysical ideology not unlike religious belief. The theory of evolution does not qualify as science by the very definition of science – given that it is not observable and repeatable.
This should be the nature of the discussion about when and where origin theses should be presented to formative minds.
I nevertheless do believe that addressing the field of ID theory in science classes provides a perfect opportunity to show how ID and evolution do not necessarily contradict one another, and thatâ€â€if evolution is taught properlyâ€â€the controversy itself disappears, except as a propaganda tool ginned up either by creationists or materialists who like to use it as a rhetorical club against their ideological opponents.
THIS is why I bloglove you Jeff.
…a perfect opportunity to show how ID and evolution do not necessarily contradict one another…
And also a perfect opportunity to say that they do, which is why the creationists at the Discovery Institute created ID.
They knew what they were doing, and it wasn’t what you think.
Like you, Jeff, I think ID and evolution don’t necessarily negate each other, and that’s probably the essence of what the President meant to say. I had a long discussion on this topic and unlike Bill’s experience found it to be the evolution fundamentalists who were unable to think outside “scientific” terms. The ID proponents mostly accepted evolution as part of ID.
I had philosophy (actually comparative religions) in a NJ public high school in addition to physics and calculus, but they were all electives. Chemistry and biology were required – but that was 30 years ago. And my grandfather thought we were slackers because he had to take them all – and Latin!
Richard —
What they think they were doing when they invented ID (and ID has been around in other forms for a long time) is immaterial (pardon the pun). The FACT is, that from a logical standpoint, the two do not contradict one another, because ID deals with first causes, and evolution should not. Evolutionary science is independent of the first cause question.
Jeff, ID is not *just* a theory of first causes, it’s a theory that wraps around first causes and speciation as well. Don’t be naive, they really are out to get you.
Again, Richard, I’m not arguing what they think it is; I’m arguing what it is, regardless of how proponents like to frame it. And the bottom line is, by assuming design—and so some planning and intent—they are necessarily arguing from a position of first cause.
I realize that part of the ID battle on the part of some is to upset Darwinian evolution; but I don’t see that happening, so I don’t worry much about it. I write much of the criticism off to anthropocentrism and the mental difficulty humans have conceiving of the lengths of time we’re talking about when we discuss selection.
Well that puts you in a curious position, Jeff, of presuming to be more knowledgeable about ID than its inventors are. Have you read the so-called “Wedge Strategy” document that was retrieved from the Discovery Institute’s web site by intrepid web surfers? This document, which was meant to be private, lays out a whole straregy for increasing the religiosity of American life by working through the implications of an anti-naturalistic theory of species.
It’s hard to cut these yahoos any slack when you’ve seen it.
Funny you should mention that, Richard. I was just watching Dr. Gross on O’Reilly.
Yes. I understand the wedge strategy. I just don’t think it will fly. And certainly not everyone who is willing to think through ID as a philosophical / metaphysical premise is an ID fundamentalist, or inherently anti-Darwinian.
Oh Richard! You have SO BUSTED us religious conservatives!!!
You have discovered our secret plan of not only brainwashing the masses with debate on this subject, but we plan on filling the school’s water fountains with holy water!!!!
They won’t even know they have been baptized!!!
Then we plan on renaming our Churches things like “Hooters” and “Joes’s Crabshack” to lure the heathen in. They will look just like resturants too (food and boobs too!) But once they are full…BAM!!!!! Let the preaching begin!
Yes, you may have discovered SOME of our diabolical plan, but not all. not all.
Be afraid. Very afraid.
Here’s a link for you, and the intro:
Teaching this in the schools violates the First Amendment.
The plan is no longer secret, Sparkle, but thanks for playing.
That’s nothing more than “Revenge of the Classicists,” Richard. It’s the Enlightenment pushing back against the excesses of post-structural and materialist thought.
Ultimately, the two will find a reasonable equilibrium.
Richard,
Are you serious? Please. You’re starting to sound like Michael Newdow.
Heaven forbid (no pun intended) we explore “new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
We can’t have that! NO exploring! No thinking!
Richard, are people stupid? I think they can look at an issue such as this and decide for themselves if the theories or discussions are believable or provable or relevant.
Don’t you think people are capable of that?
What are you afraid of?
Ok.
I understand it’s nice closing our eyes and pretending we’re in our happy place, but these decisions affect the real world. In Perfect (if you’re familar with that ad series), ID is a fascinating philosophical idea *and* cutting edge science, and adding it to high school biology classes would result in carefully reasoned, well informed, and highly educational discussions that would help students understand both the scientific method and their place in the Universe.
In reality, the ID movement is largely a clever p.r. scheme dreamed up by the Discovery Institute as a means to overthrow icky modern science and replace it with theistic science, saving the world from Jesssica Simpson and Grand Theft Auto. (See: a href = “http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html“>The Wedge Strategy</a> and <a href = “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy“>this wikipedia entry</a> on the Wedge Strategy.) Many ID adherents have increasingly come to behave like the worst kind of old-school creationists, large helpings of gross intellectual laziness and dishonesty complete with a generous sprinkle of quote-mining. At this point the scientific claims of ID appear to be completely groundless. Introducing this (highly technical) mishmash of discredited criticisms of evolution and baseless pseudoscientific claims into classes of 9th or 10th graders would be equivalent to “teaching the controversy” in high school about whether the earth in fact orbits the sun. However, since this is an incredibly loaded subject, you won’t just have bewildered students – you’ll have teachers taking the opportunity to inject their own religious or atheistic views into the science classroom. If teachers accurately represent the nonexistant debate, some religious students will feel their own beliefs are being attacked and reject science; some others may decide that science requires a rejection of religion (it doesn’t). If they push the sophistry of the Discovery Institute – and remember, not every science teacher knows all that much about science – students will be completely confused about what science is. Either way, science teaching will suffer.
The fundamental idea behind real-world ID is that science is sucky because it insists on mean atheistic methodological naturalism, which means that science doesn’t pay any attention to God, but only considers the natural world and natural explanations. Now, in the same interview, Bush “also said he believed [Orioles first baseman] Palmeiro when he testified that he didn’t use steroids.” Nasty ol’ Science would probably argue that Palmeiro tested positive for steroid use because he either had them introduced into his system knowingly or (let’s say) unknowingly, the test was messed up, or Palmiero’s biochemistry is really weird. Abandon methodological naturalism to make room for God in a increasingly atheistic world – and the idea that demons (or angels, depending on one’s team loyalties) made the test give a positive result, or oomphed those silly steroids into his bloodstream becomes entirely within the realm of possibility. Now, this might be *true* – though I would be very surprised – but as a way to do science, it’s right back there with blaiming witches for crop failure and demons for physical or mental illness. I don’t think we’ll end up back there if ID continues to spread, but we might end up having to import even more folks if we want to staff medical research and biochemistry labs, and not fall pitifully behind in the technological race . . .
That’s nothing more than “Revenge of the Classicists,†Richard. It’s the Enlightenment pushing back against the excesses of post-structural and materialist thought.
Oh My.
Am I serious about what, Sydney? I quoted the Discovery Institute’s document verbatim. I didn’t make it up, and it’s not my theory.
Jeff, you’re normalizing some insane shit. The WS says: “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.”
Is that “classicism”, and is Darwin a PoMo?
Richard, are people stupid? I think they can look at an issue such as this and decide for themselves if the theories or discussions are believable or provable or relevant.
We’re talking about kids in junior high, and yeah, a lot of them are stupid, some in an absolute sense and others in in the sense that they don’t have the learning to unwind the clever sophistry of intelligent design. Hell, a lot of adults can’t figure it out, and I don’t have to look very hard to see the evidence.
Biology is hard enough to learn without injecting the Baby Jesus into the DNA and RNA discussions, thank you very much.
I don’t think anyone is trying to inject “baby Jesus” into the curriculum. This is where you lose. Come on. Get real.
You must be a liberal. They are the ones who think everyone is just TOO STUPID to analzye and figure things out. Even 13 and 14 yr olds.
The bottom line is not merely that ID is part of a “wedge strategy” as Richard has mentioned, but also that ID itself is a fraud.
There is basically two approaches, the irreducible complexity argument of Behe and the statistical approach of Dembski. Behe’s basic point is that there exist biological structures that cannot be broken down in components and still have an evolutionary advantage. The argument being that this shows that they cannot have formed by evolution. But this has been shown false in a biological sense, and Behe has been caught playing semantic games with his definition.
Dembski’s statistical claims have been shown to be a wilful misrepresentation and misapplication of the “No Free Lunch” statistical tools.
In addition, the basic idea of ID is simply not science. As Jeff alludes above, it isn’t falsifiable and it makes no predictions of objective experiment based on hypothesis. It isn’t science. ID is a fraud.
I can’t tell what the President was trying to say. I hope that he isn’t saying that he thinks ID is science. It would disappoint me if he thought so.
I don’t understand all the hub-bub. I’m glad that Jeff has pointed out that ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. I find it bizarre when people on both extremes of the ID vs. Darwinism argument shit their pants over it. As a Christian, I am comfortable that humans and animals have evolved over time. I’m also comfortable that God had a role in creation – whether from some primordial soup or the Garden of Eden. If someone stumbles across the definitive origin of life, great, I’ll read all about it. In the meantime, it’s nearly football season.
Sure, Richard. Great Chain of Being and all that. I’m not normalizing it, though. I’m simply acknowledging from whence it comes. And no, Darwin is not po-mo. But his theories led to some important paradigm shifts in philosophy, the arts, and the sciences. The pre-Darwinian impulse to place man at the center of the universe is pushing back, is all I’m saying.
Dan S —
You don’t have to be in Perfect. You simply have to believe people have the capability of understanding if you ask them to. And the only suggestion I made about “teaching the controversy” was that you’d be teaching that IT ISN’T A CONTROVERSY. Not only would you be teaching students about the scientific method (and we are in this debate to begin with because we haven’t done so adequately), but you will further push ID back where it belongs—in philosophy or theology classes.
“Yes. I understand the wedge strategy. I just don’t think it will fly. “
Not in Perfect, no sirree! Unfortunately, we live in the real world. The only things keeping the wedge strategy loosely tethered to the earth are the courts, and that’s probably going to change.
“And certainly not everyone who is willing to think through ID as a philosophical / metaphysical premise is an ID fundamentalist, or inherently anti-Darwinian.”
No, they’re not. But that isn’t what this is about! This is about Son of Creationism Returns, the Sequel.
“It’s the Enlightenment pushing back . . .”
If I ever have been tempted to use all caps and mutiple exclamation points . . . That makes no sense. This is the revenge of the late classicalists – the ones that abandoned the intellectual heritage of Greco-Roman civilization and sunk into the Dark Ages.
“Are you serious? Please. You’re starting to sound like Michael Newdow.”
We’re not talking about the Pledge. We’re talking about teaching creationism in public school. That’s what ID is all about – an attempt to get around the big judicial smackdown of creationism. Courts will continue to smack down ID cases, wasting many, many taxpayer dollars, until enough judges get replaced (for different reasons).
“We can’t have that! NO exploring! No thinking!”
Yep. That’s ID. A gold star for you!
“Heaven forbid (no pun intended) we explore “new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.—
These aren’t *real*! Don’t you get it? The ID people are peddling snake oil. They’re like the folks who insist that mainstream science and big pharma are repressing their wonder cure for cancer and baldness . . .
“I think they can look at an issue such as this and decide for themselves if the theories or discussions are believable or provable or relevant.”
9th graders?? With usually a day or two to cover evolution, if that? With limited bio and general science knowledge? In the country that routinely scores near the bottom of the industrialized-world heap in many subjects, like science, and has a strong anti-intellectual current in its culture? In real science classes, which may well be taught by a poorly qualified teacher? On a topic that is of such importance, and loaded with enormous significance and emotional weight? And we’re talking more than a few kids?
Wow. You are an optimist.
I think before we jump in the “hey ID is ok man, it’s all philosophy, and the design SEEMS intelligent ‘n stuff..” we ought to examine the premise.
What happened before the big bang? The discussion has NO science involved. Philosophy, religion, whatever you wanna call it, there is nothing but conjecture and guess work involved.
After that? Science, and lots of it too.
As far as the design being “intelligent” well, I wouldn’t be so sure about that either.
Stephen Den Beste, an engineer, wrote about why if the human being was “designed” who or whatever did it was not a particularly INTELLIGENT designer.
There’s a simple solution to this: teach the controversial ID philosophy where it belongs, as part of a course on Christianity. And the courses on Islam can talk about their controversial philosophies, like killing all Jews or toppling stone walls on gays.
Debate is healthy, people.
Dan S
Last I looked, the top Senator trying out her Tipper Gore moment again Grand Theft Auto was the Hillary herself.
Sheesh… makes one understand how people believed Howie Dean when he blamed Kelo on right-wing Republicans.
Tman —
I’m not making any relativistic claims here. My post clearly states that ID isn’t science. However, that doesn’t mean people are going to stop asking “and before that?” There’s nothing wrong with trying to work through that from a philosophical perspective, particularly when there’s very little chance we’ll be able to puzzle out definitive origins scientifically.
Dan S —
In the real world, the kind of distrust you show in education makes me wonder why you think we should teach anything at all. Teach a 10th grader calculus? Absurd! Use ID vs evolution to hammer home the distinction between hard science and philsophy? IT CAN’T BE DONE!
And of course it makes sense to point out that the Enlightenment is pushing back. It was the ascension of materialism that effectively removed God from science, and the humanism that for years grounded our thinking sprung from the Enlightenment and ran smack dab into the critiques of materialism.
If anything is pushing back it’s the Inquisition.
Jeff,
I understand what you are saying, and I would ideally agree with you if I had faith that our education system could properly handle the discussion.
But considering the fact that certain states have school boards who BELIEVE ID IS SCIENCE, I don’t trust the government to continually support teachers who will have to fight just to keep freaking STICKERS off their SCIENCE textbooks that state that EVOLUTION is not the ONLY SCIENTIFIC explanation for the present diversity of life.
Ok, I’ve just made some chocolate chip cookies, if anyone wants some.
Richard, you burst into this thread in an incredibly obnoxious way (“So many idiots, so little time”) and Jeff has ignored your rudeness. Your pomposity is a bonus. If ID and/or Bush’s remarks on it rile you so much, work against it, march, make petitions, etc.
And by the way, BlogHer wasn’t a “seance” -it was a meeting of women bloggers. Don’t look now, but your PoMo slip is showing.
As an atheist I’m not so thin skinned I can’t handle me or my children being exposed to rather pedestrian ideas such as evolution and creationism, or even ID. No, ID shouldn’t even qualify for a unit of class time. However, competing theories, currently in vogue regardless of their accuracy, ought to be presented. They don’t even need to be compared, but teachers do their students a service by attempting to explain why people like you guys are willing go apeshit over this. In science class.
I grew up in one of the most liberal of enclaves, and my bio teacher discussed ‘spontaneous genesis’ which was creationism without a ‘God’ element. The idea came across in scientific terms that there was no scientific support for spontaneous genesis without declaring that the Bible was wrong. This is the debate I think the President wants to foster, and it’s quite relevant in a science class.
Moreover, in my experience, I’ve found that devout christians are more likely to calmly and rationally debate the issue than devout atheists. I think being exposed to both sides of the debate assists in that. ( Further, nearly every Christian I discussed this topic with believed in the coexistence of God and evolution. )
God made me the way I am, peggy, and who the hell are you to criticize the Almighty? Thunderbolts are headed your way, you obnoxious twit.
Ow.
Cookie?
Sorry to jump in so late (but it is quieter in here, now). In College back in 197-mumble, mumble, wasn’t it called “The receeding God theory”? As Jeff mentioned, that was wayyy long ago. The theory that God created the universe, than sat back and watched it roll.
Let me take this opportunity to recommend Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, which addresses a lot of the tenets of what is now ID.
Yes, please. I’ll have two if you don’t mind.
Cheerio, this was fun.
The real debate isn’t whether to use ID to teach about the scientific method. It’s whether science teachers will be mandated to teach ID in science class as science – a collection of highly technical (if repeatedly refuted) criticisms of evolutionary theory, and some fringe ideas whose status in the scientific community at this time is somewhere between ESP and the philosopher’s stone. We can visit Perfect some other time – this is the real world.
Don’t confuse theistic evolution (God worked through evolution, perhaps by making the rules, or possibly even guiding it, but science isn’t expected to figure that out – reconciles scientific findings and religious faith without brutalizing either one) with ID.
Ok, people – what were your high school biology experiences?
Sorry, only one. Jeff gets all the rest, for putting up with all of us.
Seriously though, it’s not nice to call names. At least describe my twit-ness, fer cryinoutloud.
My feeling about Jeff’s original post (remember that?) is that there is little chance our country will fall if various theories of our existence are offered to young minds. Many young minds can take it all in, and decide for themselves. Sorry if you do not personally believe in such a possibility. Is ID perhaps code for Creationism? Sure, probably. But so what? WMD was code for other motives/realities, too (depending on who you talk to, natch).
Jeff will surely correct me if I’m wrong on his original point – that ID has some place, alongside Darwinism and/or other theories, and that to simply say so out loud, in a classroom, will not necessarily bring down America as we know it. And I agree with that.
I was brought up in the Darwin tradition, steeped in it. Richard Dawkins makes a brilliant, crystal-clear and seemingly irrefutable apology for the neo-Darwinian scheme. And yet, I have to perceive holes in it. No teleology, for example.
But this doesn’t entail a retreat to only ID or creationism. There are many other possible explanations that can leave the fundaments of Darwinism intact. We don’t yet know enough. In schools we should teach the scientific virtue of doubt, debate, many solutions and many experiments.
ID versus only Dawkins excludes very many possible routes of clarification. Only endless time, debate, and experiment can clarify the confusions.
Current mainstream ‘science’ as practiced is the New Inquisition. Pssst… The Emperor Has No Clothes…
The problem with your argument, Jeff, is that ID is not philosophy or theology…it is pseudoscience. It exists only as a challege to the prevailing scientific consensus in Evolutionary Biology on scientific grounds. ID, whether its proponents want to admit it or not, starts with the doctrinal assertion that Darwin Must Be Wrong Because It Contradicts Our Religion, and then sifts through the evidence to find anything that might support that position. And that is ALL it does. ID doesn’t even make theological assertions because the SCOTUS specifically said it couldn’t and still be taught in the classroom!
A lot of this discussion seems to be based on the incorrect idea that evolution and intelligent design are about the initial origins of life.
That is absolutely untrue with regard to the theory of evolution. Biological evolution has nothing to say about how the first life originated. Rather, it’s all about how to get from first life to the current diversity we observe.
Intelligent design doesn’t really have much to do with the initial origins of life either. At least, not according to the main ID proponents (Behe, Dembski, etc.). As far as they’re concerned, ID is all about proving that certain features of complex life couldn’t possibly have arisen the way the theory of evolution predicts. Therefore, (so they argue) a designer must have played a directing role.
When it comes to explaining the diversity of life, modern evolutionary theory and intelligent design are very much in conflict. And, while I agree that they don’t conflict with regard to the origin of life, that’s primarily because neither has much to say in that regard.
Which means that Bush’s statement that both should be discussed when teach students about the creation of life is rather nonsensical. (Assuming that’s really what he was saying.)
getzal, thoughtful comment.
I’m thinking the whole matter might be best addressed in English classes (especially when they make squirmy younguns read, think and talk about Poetry). After all, good poetry is as much an undefinable mystery as all This, eh?
qetzal, (and others) —
I think some of the confusion here stems from a confusion in terms—which is partly my fault. From now on, though, I’m going to make a distinction between what I’ll call “soft” ID (which encompasses all those theories that float the idea that an intelligent designer is responsible for creating life, including deism and creationism) and “hard” ID, which, while it amounts to the same thing, at least claims to be acting as a critique on Darwinian evolution and the theory of natural selection, only to back into the intentionalist argument for design.
As I wrote in my post, evolutionary biology isn’t concerned with first causes; I believe ID (both hard and soft) is—though hard ID might not on its face have much to say in that regard (still, when you wind up, even through reduction, with a “designer,” you’re talking about that old watchmaker of Paley’s). I don’t see any inherent conflict between soft ID and evolution; and the conflict I see between hard ID and evolution is illusory, based as it is on faulty scientific hypotheses, such as irreducible complexity.
Which is why I don’t think Bush’s statement was nonsensical at all: ID concerns itself with first causes; evolution should not. But materialism, as a philosophical principal, can—and there is no reason why we should look at a debate between materialism and metaphysics as nonsensical, provided we do so in the proper context. Which, as my post begins, is not the science class—except when such a discussion is used to distinguish between science and philosophy, and to mark out the limits and uses of each.
Sir Arthur Eddington: Don’t believe the results of experiments until they’re confirmed by theory.
Jeff,
You may be ascribing more wisdom and/or native nuance to Bush’s remarks, I don’t know. What I do know is you’re smarter than he is, so there, I’ve said it. And I still get/agree with your take on ID (hard or soft) and whatever its place may be, in any classroom. For me the whole issue almost boils down to a simple idea: freedom of speech. I.E., Bush can say whatever he wants (however aggravating most of it can be, for folks like me), but yep, he has that right. And obviously every damn thing he says is deemed Important and Significant, because, well, every president’s utterances are.
This one doesn’t bend me out of shape. It was/is predictable.
I know it’s corny and almost patchouli-scented to say this, but I still trust in the ballot box, when it comes to issues (and people) great & small.
p.s. Hope you liked my cookies. Seriously. You do rock, I don’t say that to just anyone. And why do you rock, you might ask?
Heh. Nevermind. You know.
Thanks for the kind words, peggy! Nice to hear from someone who leans your way politically—particularly after a couple of weeks of having some rather nasty stuff thrown my way.
Now I’m going to have a Guinness and watch a Clint Eastwood movie.
“Unforgiven” I hope. What a gem. Happy tv-ing!
Teach science in public school, philosophy/theology in university. Public school is not the place for religion classes…which, I believe this is Bush’s foot in the door relative to creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent? sheesh!
Jeff, given your definition, I agree that it’s perfectly possible to reconcile evolutionary theory and ‘soft’ ID.
I’m not sure how that applies to Bush’s comments. Instapundit has a link to the transcript on washingtonpost.com [removed URL, which wasn’t resolving properly; transcript link available on main post in update]. The entire relevant passage is this:
So, contrary to what Yahoo!News said, it’s not at all clear that he was referring to the origins of life per se. To his credit, Bush does not explicitly say the ID should be taught in science class, just that he thinks it should be “properly” taught. I imagine the ambiguous phrasing was not accidental.
On the other hand, the part about ‘understanding the debate’ is worrisome. It’s exactly the kind of language that ‘anti-evolutionists’ use when arguing that kids should be ‘taught the controversy’ regarding evolution in science class. The reality is that there is no scientific controversy. At least, not regarding the theory of evolution as a whole.
The debate is all about the perceived conflict between evolution and certain theologies. So, when Bush talks of teaching the debate, it’s difficult to read that as anything other than teaching some form of religious creationism as an alternative to evolution in science class. Difficult for me, anyway.
Well, the gist of my post was that Bush was very careful with his language, that it wasn’t by accident (as you say), and that I think many people on both the right and left were throwing their own baggage onto the cart.
But from where I’m standing, I actually think it would do us good to teach students the terms of the debate or, using the loaded terminology of ID proponents, “teach the controversy”—because I think doing so accomplishes two things: it demystifies science while properly identifying evolution and ID as incompatible for scientific comparison; and it helps to beat back the sense of victimization that drives much of the passion on the issue from proponents of ID.
As I say, I think ID has it’s place in metaphysics and philosophy (and psychology, by extension), where it is free to rub up against materialism in a debate about first causes. But because it deals with such questions, while evolution should not, it is not science and shouldn’t be taught as such.
Which is precisely what makes raising the field of ID research, as I noted in my post, so valuable a strategy for teaching science—to drawn the distinctions.
And now I’m really off for the night to watch a flick.
And it’s Pale Rider this time. Not sure I’ve ever seen that one all the way through.
I don’t know much about Ontology – but I know what I like.
Pale Rider isn’t as good as Unforgiven, but the horse he rides in PR is so perfect -and it flicks its wispy, pale tail in all the right ways.
“soft ID” – that is, theistic ideas that have room for evolutionary theory – can more or less be translated as “theistic evolution’ – evolution happened;God made/worked through evolution; he may have guided it in some incomprehensible way, science can describe the natural world, but religion can go beyond that. That’s not what the fuss is about, largely because it accepts Gould’s NOMA principle. The religion doesn’t pontificate about science, and the science has nothing to say about God (outside the natural world, makes instead of follows natural laws). Not an issue. Not ID, in terms of what that term currently signifies. That’s hard ID, which both claims scientific proof of design by the Designer previously known as Jehovah, and seeks to redefine science, since it has the gall to actually question this. Bad ID!
Again. (hard) ID is not currently science. It’s pseudoscience. The “debate” is a tarted-up public relations campaign; it is not an actual scientific debate. By Bush’s logic, high school science students should be exposed to astrology, UFOs, Chariots of the Gods?, ESP, flat-earthism, goecentrism, and so on.
Will the world end if ID gets into public school science classes? Well, no . . . but in a certain sense, worst-case-scenario – yes. Bear with me . . .
There has been some valient defense of 9th graders’ good common sense. These people are much more optimistic than me. Given powerful religious currents, a well organized quasi-political movement, and too-often poor science teaching, I find it hard to believe that the teaching of evolution will not be substantially undermined in many places. “Teaching the controversy” will also help inflame a (perceived) conflict between science and faith, secularism and religion, neighbor against neighbor. Research the situation in Dover, PA – lots of hard feelings, and no end in sight.
Undermining the teaching of evolution – the central organizing principle of modern biology – could only have worrisome repercussions in terms of training people for 21st century jobs, and creating educated citizens able to make complicated scientific decisons. It’s true that most kids don’t really pay all that much attention to *anything* in bio class (and it’s not just the kids’ fault), but it’s not like we need fewer scientists and more burger-flippers, y’know?
Those are some possible utilitarian arguments, but I would go beyind that. It’s a wonderful world. It’s a beautiful place. (it’s also, to use the poet James Wright’s words, a “scurvy and disasterous place,” but thanks to my wife, cat and garden, I mostly notice more of the beautiful bits). For some people, one way of appreciating these marvels is through science, through understanding how it all works. Many scientists, for example, will tell you that’s what got them into science (and why they tend to score astronomically high on job satisfaction, on the would-pay-to-get-to-do-this level). The rest of us might read books and magazines, go on nature walks, etc. From a certain religious perspective – which I don’t share, but sympathize with – using our minds to strive to comprehend the processes of God’s creation is indeed a sublime act of worship. To see this understanding clouded, not with new knowledge, but the worst kind of obscurantist claptrap; to see this possibility to develop this vision denied to children because of fear and ignorance – it’s deeply, deeply offensive.
But it’s not the end of the world, right? Well, now. Let’s say that religion is the sun (insert cheesy church billboard pun here). Sagan, in his last book (I think?), called scientific thinking a candle in the dark, but let’s say instead that science is electric light. We need sunlight, but electric light does a lot of neat and useful things. However, without a source of electricity, it goes out. In Charles Freeman’s book _The closing of the Western mind: The rise of faith and the fall of reason_, he recounts that the “Athenian philosopher Proclus made the last recorded astronomical in the ancient Greek world in A.D. 475. It was not until the sixteenth century that Copernicus . . . set in hand the renewel of the scientific tradition.” When I read about the spread of ID, which challenges the fundamental underpinnings of modern science, when I hear ID advocates testify in front of the Kansas Board of Ed that the earth could be anywhere from 4.5 billion to 5,000 years old (or was that 10,000?) . . . sometimes I can’t help imagining the bright, artifical lights slowly, slowly dimming, over decades, until they finally go out, leaving just frail flickering flames. The world won’t end, of course – but sometimes I worry that *a* world might end, the world of clean, well-lit spaces, the world where we can so oh so confidantly hold the night at bay.
Is this likely? I don’t think so. It’s the worst of worst-case-scenarios for science education. But a little of that fear lurks back behind the argument -at least of sliding back slightly towards another dark age, if not regressing all the way . Next time you see some advocate for modern science going inexplicibly batsh*t, this all may be some small element behind it (or not). The ID advocates have their nightmares about evolution proving the world to really be a soulless, disenchanted Godless place, with humanity just a bunch of clumsy apes shambling meaninglessly towards pointless death. Without overstressing the comparision, some pro-science advocates may have their own nightmares, ones of a dark and disasterous world, bathed in ignorance. There’s a famous book about the late middle ages called “A world lit only by fire.” Nice place to visit -wouldn’t want to live there.
qualifiers:
inexplicitly bats**t – to folks who don’t get what all the fuss is about . . .
It would almost certainly take large-scale disruption on an international scale for us to lose science as a society. What I fear might happen, worst case again, is that public understanding of science becomes even weaker and weaker – especially if education, media, etc. becomes more stratified and balkanized. While a small portion of the population forms an educated elite, most people will live in a world of magic, superstition, and general credulity, a poor basis for a democractic society . . .
Hmmm.
1. I frankly couldn’t care less about either Evolution or ID.
2. Has anyone actually proven Evolution yet? When I was a kid it was still considered a theory, the most probable theory, but still mostly a theory. And, see #1, I haven’t kept up.
3. Since a lot of people also believe life on Earth started from meteors, i.e. Panspermia (now that’s a helluva name for a movie character!), does this mean that Panspermia should or should not be also taught in school.
Wow, I feel like I stumbled late into the party, the punch is all gone and the buffet is nothing but crumbs on a plate, but dang, Jeff . . . what a really great post about life, the universe and, well, everything! (Sorry, I just rewatched my DVD set of ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide’
.
Coming from someone who started off life in a deeply fundamentalist household, but then managed to struggle my own way into atheism (with a little help from my friends), I can’t help but think that competing ideas are healthy—in fact, are to be desired. Evolution isn’t taught as well as it could or should be, and perhaps the introduction of I.D. can only help sharpen the perimeters of the debate.
I personally don’t subscribe to I.D., but am not afraid of someone else saying that a force beyond random selection must be at work. Do I think that I.D. is merely a plot to re-introduce theology into public schools? Perhaps. But comparative theology (as I.D. doesn’t name a specific source) does have a place in a well-rounded educational system, right alongside philosophy, psychology and art, and if theology needs the cover of science to re-emerge in our classrooms, well, then, maybe that’s more the fault of our educational system than some insidious plot on the part of god-crazed extremists.
But what I really care about is if somebody saved me a cookie somewhere, like, in the freezer . . . ? Peggy?
Boy, its lucky we have christian theories to kick around. Much of the country (and many on this site) apparently get behind telling kids who may have grown up in Christian households and been taught from birth that “God created the world” that those kids parents are wrong, those kids pastors are wrong, those kids sunday school teachers are wrong, etc. Essentially, you are requiring children to acknowledge that their worldview is not even worth considering in science classes. Personally, I think its horseshit.
Imagine, if you will, telling a Muslim child that Allah is not the source of all life- could you imagine the outrage from the Muslim community- so immediately, the government would find ways to allow Muslims to be taught diffently while atheists continue to strongly indicate that Christians’ beliefs are worth less- I assume thats because its unlikely that a Christian will strap a bomb to his/her chest and detonate themselves in a crowded shopping mall – amazing the leverage those wacky islamists have in this country.
“taking” – yep.
[…] have previously argued for what I think is a proper and useful way to introduce ID into discussions of Darwinian evolution […]
[…] Can’t we just all get along? […]
You Luddite Christianist Jew you. Charles Johnson will be mad at you. Consider yourself banned.
I agree ID is not a scientific theory. It is more of a philosophical theory. Your very reasonable proposal is exactly the way this theory should be discussed. We do not need Talibanesqe forces barring such discussions in school any more than we need the tiny minority of Christians or Orthodox Jews who want the young earth theory taught as fact. The general scientific concensus now is the universe exploded from a singularity smaller than an atom about 14 billion years ago and that created the entire universe we are aware of and from one of the rocks floating in that see of matter and engery, life spontaneously errupted and eventually became self aware enought to figure all this out.
Now whether you a theist or not, that is pretty miraculous.