One of the funniest things I’ve read in quite some time.
Here is the report. It is all I know about the discussion.
(AP) Tuesday, August 2, 2005 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 guess is that too many people extend the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life … we emerged from the primordial ooze … yada yada yada. Indeed, my two eldest children were taught in science class that, as a facutal matter, life began in some super heated ooze millenia ago and humans evolved from there. I have had to explain to both of them that this is not necessarily as factual as they were led to believe.
I agree with you on all points on your last two posts except the teaching aspect. As I’ve stated before, I have no problems educating students enrolled in a philosophy/religious class about the different religious beliefs, but that is not what is going on: Bush & the religious right believe that ID/Creationism should be taught alongside evolution as if both were equally scientific theories. I have a huge problem with that, and believe it is in direct violation of the separation of church/state.
Ahhhhhhhh our “leader” George W. Bush and his theories.
“evolution - why thats nuttin but a theory”
“global warming - why thats nuttin but an unproved theory”
“the great flood - why them arkie hologists have dun found the leftins of Noah’s huge ship sumwhure in Turkey near Mount Arrierat. Thats gotta be true now fellas.”
and the best one of all…
" well Saddam’s gotta have WMDs - look at them there photos Colin Powells got. And them Irackeys were buyin alooominyum tubes? what the hell was they buyin them fer? To make kemmykal weppins thats whut fer."
While current theories regarding evolution and/or the origins of life may not be absolutely certain on an epistemological level, they are consensus theories which are generally well-supported by existing evidence, hence why they are taught.
ID, on the other hand, has basically no scholarship, no existing field of study, no actual research being conducted to determine whether it has any factual basis or whether it is simply conjured out of thin air, or the narrow spaces which current paleontological evidence doesn’t cover, yet. That is not, and should not be considered a “legitimate” basis for teaching it in schools. And even its “theories” are intellectually unsound, at best. That is simply bullshit.
As somebody else pointed out, that is like saying that because there is something of a gap between quantum and Newtonian physics, that we can fill that gap by explaining that magic rules the physical universe. That is simply absurd, and I find it incredible that otherwise educated (I assume) people could so broadly misunderstand the nature of knowledge.
By GWB’s explanation, I could just as easily espouse the theory of a giant benevolent cow in the sky named “Skippy” as the creator of our universe, but it would be derided as absurd. Or is it? Can you disprove it? And because you “believe” that evolution can’t explain complexity, why can’t my cow be the answer? Or Scientology for that matter. You can make Scientology jokes all you want, but why aren’t we teaching about Thetans to our children?
I’ll tell you why. Because it’s bullshit. And because as enlightened people, we are supposed to separate religion and faith from science. And the fact that GWB can’t or won’t discern the difference is in large part why he is so intensely unpopular in those sectors that dislike him, and perhaps the converse as well.
And this is less about “irreducible complexity” than about the inability of small minds to contemplate processes and time bigger than them.
Damn. Well thought out & very well said. Bravo.
- I could just as easily espouse the theory of a giant benevolent cow in the sky named “Skippy” as the creator of our universe*
Absurd. It’s a pink zebra named Bingo
Jeebus is gonna smite you
.
I have an intensely emotional reaction to this topic of discussion because I consider it the legimitization of institutional ignorance. At the heart of it I think it is the future of what we call knowledge. When we start losing a grip on the definition of “facts” and the scientific method, which has served us pretty well so far, I really think it is the beginning of a serious decline in thinking.
And the thing is, this is a political thing. That fundamentally insubstantial thing, politics, has the nerve to intrude into science and the pursuit of knowledge. And in our effort to be polite, or as a deliberate effort of Orwellian newspeak, we reduce the truthful quality of fact, and just dismiss the concept of truth altogether. Instead of truth and fact, we just have alternative viewpoints. That would be fine, except that the evidence, and other pesky facts, don’t support all viewpoints.
It then degrades into a fundamentally anti-intellectual dialogue, which is repugnant to me. It’s no longer the enlightenment of a species talking, it’s the reptilian baser instincts fighting. I don’t think that’s how we advanced as a society. Or at least hope not.
GET OFF THIS FORUM MR. SMARTYPANTS KNOW IT ALL WITH YOUR BIG WORDS AND FANCY GRAMMAR N’ALL.
I was over in Australia during Easter. It’s interesting to note they celebrate Easter the same way we do, commemorating the death and resurrection of Jesus by telling our children a giant bunny rabbit left chocolate eggs in the night … Why those two things? Why not goldfish left Lincoln Logs in your sock drawer.
“Mummy, I woke up today and there was a Lincoln Log in me sock drawer.”
“‘Yes dear, that’s the story of Jesus!’” 
Decompose in peace Bill
So you don’t think students should be exposed to different views?
Which of these different views would you like to see students exposed to?
Eugenics is a good thing
Jews are too dangerous to be left in charges of banks and businesses
Homosexuality is something you are born with
Single sex relationships are a good thing.
Violent retribution and vigilantes are a good thing.
The law is basically powerless to protect the individual
The church should not be divorced from the state
The executive should not be divorced from the judiciary
If you’re arrested, you should accept the fact that you’ve done something wrong
Taxes should be applied at punitive levels to the richest in order to subsidise the poorest
Property is theft
Violence (including torture) in the name of religion is acceptable
The earth is flat
Scientific theory is useless in predicting things, because everything that happens is the result of a creator’s will
The Vatican is the centre of the universe
Eve was created from Adam’s rib, and all humans are descended from Adam and Eve
Married women are their husband’s property
The moon landings were faked.
Slavery is a good thing
I’m not even trying hard. But I’m willing to bet that you don’t think that students should be exposed to all of these “different views”. And if you do, you have serious problems.
The real question is not answered by hiding behind a glib assertion of “different views should be entertained”. The real question is whether a particular different view should be advanced for serious consideration. That’s always going to be a difficult and controversial decision. But we shouldn’t avoid making it by hiding behind the platitude that every view should be respected. Freedom of expression is one thing. But affording equal respect and airtime to every expression is a quite different thing.
Settle down, take a deep breath, I suppose when you are not so worked up your vocabulary permits a wider selection beyond the vulgar. But then, maybe I presume too much.
That said, comparing theories regarding the origin of life (or the universe for that matter) to cows or pink zebras or whatever you and your cohorts have identified is childish and condescending. To my knowledge there is no commonly accepted scientific explanation for the origin of life or the universe. All proposed explanations are equally unsatisfactory and rooted ultimately in speculation.
Enlighten me please. Explain for me the origin of life and the universe. I am open to all possibilities. Some I may reject (1) a holy cows, (2) a pink zebra, (3) it just happened, (4) some inexplicable massive explosion with no cause and nothing in existence at the time but nevertheless resulting not in chaos but in an extremely ordered and complex universe supporting, at least on one planet, an almost infinite variety of life with at least one form of such life capable of asking the questions we are discussing here) others I may not.
So, take your best shot and convince me that it is the only theory that should be taught as a possibility.
By GWB’s explanation, I could just as easily espouse the theory of a giant benevolent cow in the sky named “Skippy” as the creator of our universe, but it would be derided as absurd. Or is it? Can you disprove it? And because you “believe” that evolution can’t explain complexity, why can’t my cow be the answer?
This is an excellent post, IMO. I have only quoted the passage above as is leads indirectly to a point I wanted to make.
Children believe in Father Christmas. Adults don’t. But why do adults continue to believe in a benevolent, unseen, all-knowing and all-seeing creator? If children were told that Father Christmas was God, could we eliminate religion in a generation?
Brick that noise you just heard was the point flying by your left ear.
If you’re going to reject holy cows, pink zebras, and an inexplicable massive explosion, why would you possibly accept a giant fairy in the sky? You want to reject the first two because there’s no scientific evidence, fine. You want to reject the third because it doesn’t explain the how that mechanism led to the creation of life, fine. Give me one piece of evidence that a big sky fairy did it. If you can’t, then there is ZERO reason to include that as a legitimate alternative in the discussion unless your aim is specifically to introduce religion into the discussion.
My tirade wasn’t aimed at you in particular, just at the notion that this debate even needs to take place.
As for the origin of life/the universe, that is a different discussion than evolution vs. ID. I don’t think there can be a strong case made for the Big Bang, etc., beyond deductive reasoning, and observed astrophysics and cosmology. That said, these are still theories that are based and evolve with a reliance on observed phenomena and physical evidence. However, given the rather long periods of time involved here, it’s simply not going to be possible to piece together a convincing enough argument for some people, especially those bent on faith over science.
That said, we have to rely on what is reasonable. That is why even this astronomy/physics is still rooted in the universal language of mathematics. And I think when you baseline to this language, the universal appeal and inability to be twisted is what makes it compelling.
But as you said, there is no “consensus” explanation for the beginning of the universe, and as Heisenberg explained, there can sometimes be even no theoretical way to observe certain phenomena. But does this give credence to alternative theories? Are there alternative explanations which properly take into account observed physical history and phenomena? Or is it that which lives in the cracks on which we base other theories?
On that basis, we could for instance, argue that modern sharks have only been around as long as human beings, because, as cartilaginous fish, they don’t leave much of a fossil record to track. But as reasonable human beings bent on trying to explain the universe, we can make reasonable deductions based on what we have found, and what we see today, to make decent guesses as to what has happened to them over time. Would this be heresy?
As I have posted before, I think that evolution explains a great deal about biological development on this planet over time. I think it utterly fails when extended to the origin of life.
That you and others reject as fantasy any theory involving a primary creative force by likening it to a fairy in the sky betrays an ignorance of astounding proportions. An ignorance born of hubris and rooted in the arrogance of your own self-importance. How is it possible you ask that there could be anything greater than man? Show me the proof, you demand. You say it cannot be until I see. Well, greater minds than mine have tackled this problem and have remained perplexed. But apparently there are no minds greater than yours that have remained perplexed. Because you, of course, know better. You, of course, know that there is nothing greater than man; that there is nothing beyond our comprehension; that there is nothing beyond the happenstance of existence over time arising from nothing but resulting in everything. I do not know this as you do and therein lies the difference between us.
I do not know this as you do and therein lies the difference between us.
No, the difference b/t us is that I am not out there advocating that a superstition/belief with roots in religious dementia be taught alongside generally accepted scientific theories/facts in public schools. If you are going to teach ID as a legitimate theory, you must include all other religious beliefs, whether it be Thetans from Scientology, a gold-touting angel from Mormonism, or a pink cow from Joe’s House of Worship. All ID represents is a way for the religious right to introduce their beliefs, and religion, into the public schools. The theories behind ID are simply to deflect from the purpose of the argument.
No, the difference between me and you is that I demand evidence to justify every assertion, great and small.
I’m not arguing that there isn’t anything greater than man. But you simply haven’t argued with any structure or persuasive strength that it is so. And until it can be shown with some reasonable evidence, there is no reason to believe that it is so.
How many other phenomena would you simply believe out of hand, without evidence? You’re free to exempt the origins of life and a Creator from this scrutiny, but you are not free to argue that others should as well. I’m not arguing that He does or doesn’t exist. I don’t personally see evidence of it, but that is irrelevant. I am arguing in favor of a process that shows intellectual rigor and makes use of the collective intelligence and brainpower this Being presumably bequeathed to us.
And when you start arguing that institutionally, as a people, we should exempt certain questions from the purview of science, where does that leave science? Only good for inventing cellphones and anti-lock brakes, things that the Creator couldn’t have time to invent for us?
You embrace the concept of a creator. You reject the concept that life developed spontaneously from inorganic matter.
You reject the concept that a creator “just is/was/will always be”, and reject the concept that he/she/it developed from something.
See the inconsistency? Magic works for the intangible and indefineable, but not for us. The difference in our views is not rooted in ignorance or arrogance, I assure you.