God is Gooder than Science in Kansas
TOPEKA, Kan. (Nov. 
– Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
I had two debates on Monday a private Christian school in Connecticut on the subject of Intelligent Design. Their thought and arguments were the standard stuff, and I combatted with the standard stuff….Until the children started asking questions. “What exactly IS evolution?” “Did we really evolve from monkeys”? “Evolution is foreign to me — how does it work?” I realized that these kids, who were SUPPOSED to “hear both sides and make a choice”, weren’t hearing one side at all. These seniors knew less about standard scientific theory than my 8-year-old daughter, which IMO is sure to give them a disadvantage in college.HERE’S SOME GOOD NEWS: Dover ID’ers booted out by smart citizens!http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/11/clean-sweep-in-dover.html
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, November 9th, 2005 at 1:19 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
jcc,
jcc
How do you know no one is home? Maybe they are just avoiding you. Maybe they are in the living room in a pool of blood waiting for the CSI team. Maybe they’re in the shower.
How long do you keep knocking before you decide no one is thee?
jcc:
What? Wasn’t ‘feigning interest’, thank you very much. I was genuinely interested in the topic. ‘Perceived weakness’?
What are you on about?
Take a deep breath, or 3.
I think you’re reading a little too much into it.
Are we going to do this merry-go-round again?
I re-iterate, from earlier: a person & their opinion are different creatures.
‘Prone to mockery’? Ain’t nuthin’ sacred?
Not to me.
Hey, go ahead & mock my opinions. I won’t take it personally.
An opinion’s just an abstract. People are real.
I’m not obliged to respect the former. The latter is a different animal entirely.
OOps! …before you decide no one is THERE?
HZ-We’re thinking alike again!
HZ:
Yippee! Do I get a toaster?
Another no-prize? Oh, joy.
Technology’s a wunnerful thing, ain’t it?
karen,
It must be divine intervention. It’s too coincidental to be random chance.
RA,
The spirit of the divine Brothhood is more prize than any earthly trinket could offer.
HZ
As a matter of fact, now that you mention it, I do believe I felt the touch of His Noodly Appendage!
But first you must believe there is a ‘door’ with a ‘home’ attached to it. Believe and you will believe.
karen:
Sure that wasn’t 1 of your cats brushing your bare foot?
RA
Ohhhhhhhh…….You are being the PERFECT straight-man!!!
But I’m going to be a good little goddess and not crack a joke out of the blue book!
karen:
??? Not sure what you’re talking about.
Was gonna make a crack about HMDK, but….
somebody here might take offense.
jcc:
Okay, so I get it.
Sorry.
Thought you were sneaking in some scripture, what w/the knocking on the door thing. You must admit, the simile is there (or metaphor, or whatnot).
The prayer bit was just off the top o’ me head, not directed at anyone in particular.
Don’t appreciate the crack about ‘feigning interest’, though. Genuinely interested.
RA
You were just stting me up very nicely to make an off-color joke involving th e noodly appendage.
Yep. We’re still in the Disney portion of the evening!
Something new. Can’t elaborate right now. Too busy and the boss is watching
In the mean time, everybody get down on your hands and knees and start knocking on that imaginary door!
Ye-haa !
r4d:
What, is it a doggy door? Don’t those things just swing inwards?
I can’t walk in the bloody thing, I’ll just go next door, thanks.
I have to stand on a ladder to reach my imaginary door.
I use an imaginary ladder too.
Can’t remember where you guys were talking about church signs.
I saw one this morning that said:
God is not joking.
Hell is still smoking!
Somebody musta stayed up all night writing that one.
jcc said:
“I want to see evidence of a truly transitional form?not just a possible variation of a form, but a genuinely new morphological feature that represents a response to an environmental change.”
it would happen too slowly to be recognized during our individual lifetimes which are a “blink of the eye” in geologic time. and as i have asked on another post… is it possible to know if some “new” species of flora or fauna found in some isolated, undespoiled place on the planet didn’t just recently begin under the circumstances you propose? and i define recent here as compared to geologic time.
reluctantatheist:
Thanks for the link.
Yes, it is quite frustrating trying to carry on an honest and dignified discussion where ideas and opinions should be able to be given and mutually respected without threat of ridicule. I knew what I was getting into by joining this blog and expected as much, but there is a limit to my patience.
“Yes, it is quite frustrating trying to carry on an honest and dignified discussion where ideas and opinions should be able to be given and mutually respected without threat of ridicule.”
This from someone who cites the bible as evidence of eyewitnesses to the resurrection?
“I knew what I was getting into by joining this blog and expected as much, but there is a limit to my patience.” Wow, a snotty remark uttered to gain sympathy! What a ploy!
But, okay, let’s (AGAIN) look at ID:
yeah, let’s -compare-…
FOR ANYONE TO BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, SAID PERSON MUST SAY THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD OR GODS
ISN’T PROVEN OR, IN STEAD, PROVIDE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE FOR SAID INCREDIBLE CLAIM.
Have any religion done so?
No.
So… what exactly is it we’re supposed to believe?
Well (sigh),
Going back and forth on whether I really want continue this particular back and forth. Perhaps it would be better to turn the other cheek at this point… I don’t know. I am letting myself get a little too worked up over a blog thread. Seems rather silly when you think about. But I can’t resist saying this: If my own mother were to use a god of the gaps argument masked as objective reasoning on me then I would probably tell her that she’s full of shit.
Call that arrogant if you like – perhaps it is, but I have been known to admit that I’m wrong. I’ve never claimed that my conclusions are always right. In fact, I wouldn’t be an atheist if I hadn’t the capacity to admit error.
But anyway..
HM asked:
Anything you want.
Believe and you will believe.
HairlessMonkeyDK:
And that from someone who apparently believes his consciousness, his ability to think abstractly, his intrinsic discernment of right and wrong, his unique personality, his essence, his very being is simply the result of one fortuitous ?accident? after another over the past 3.5 billion years.
Sympathy is not what I?m after by posting here, but if expecting to be treated with the respect I give is a ?ploy,? then so be it.
In the words of that great sage escher, who used to post here, what you?ve posited is a ?false dichotomy.? Claiming that evidence indicates the existence of God makes one no less intellectually honest than one who claims the opposite. Irrefutable evidence does not exist for either case.
That is up to the discretion of the individual.
Jcc said:
That is up to the discretion of the individual.
TX
So how could you set up a curriculum for a high school science class when discussing the age of the earth and how we got here? Where I’m coming from is if each individual has a parent that wants their idea taught you could have 30 different ideas. Due to lack of time it would be hard and what would the textbook have in it concerning this?
TXatheist:
By objectively presenting all known scientific facts as facts alone, and by making it abundantly clear that the concepts of intelligent design and evolution are unproven conjectures?and explain why for each. But the problem is (as always) the person teaching will always inject his or her own bias into how it is taught. I was guilty of this myself when I taught Physical and Historical Geology labs when I was in graduate school. If I had the same opportunity to do it again, I?d still teach all the same facts, but would no longer present evolution as a forgone conclusion as I did.
JCC: If I condensed this correctly you are saying there are scientific facts for ID? Please explain what fact supports ID.
TXatheist:
Yes. I listed them for karen on the ?Does Any God Exist? thread:
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2005/07/27/qaamp_a_does_any_god_exist#comments
my posts were at 07/28/05 @ 16:23 and 07/28/05 @ 16:26
TXatheist:
Sorry, I didn’t paste in that link completely. I’ll try it again:
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2005/07/27/qaamp_a_does_any_god_exist#comments
TXatheist:
Well, it seems the URL is too long for this text entry field. You can find it if you manually go back to that page.
jcc,
Just read your list. Took me about three seconds to realize it comes directly from Ross’ site, but that’s not really a critique. I don’t see anything new in this list – more watchmaker perspective, and early comments of yours in that thread just suggest more god of the gaps posturing.
But real quick – the whole watchmaker thing kinda just gets me thinking about the problem of human perspective. I mean, the universe hasn’t always been hospitable to life as we know it. Chances are, if astrophysics tells us anything, that the universe will someday cease having the capacity to support us. I just think laws of nature fill in the opportunities that present themselves. In way we’re just lucky to be here, but then again luck is another human concept based on our limited perspective.
anyway, lunch break.
jcc, I read the 41 items and there is no doubt that it took a great number of occurances for life to occur. Where we differ is there is no way to say god did it and to grant that god is able to do these things even if he did exist. I realize we differ in this. My point is that the FSM is just as likely to have done it if you grant powers to such figures.
In addition the list of forty one pertain to extant life. Changing a factor does not preclude the posibility of life, just of life as we know it.
If I bake a cake with small, medium, or large eggs, or no eggs at all, I still have a cake albeit all slightly different cakes.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Yes, and Ross, in his book, Creation And Time goes into considerable detail explaining how, in order for life as we know it, to exist requires a specific aged bachelor star, a specific aged solar system (gravitationally balanced by the giant outer planets), and a specific aged spiral galaxy.
Absolutely. The search for a Grand Unification Theory has predicted proton decay?so even the universe itself has a half-life. It had a discreet beginning and will have a discreet ending?and nobody, no life-form at all, will be able to avoid it.
I think, given those 41 observations, that ?luck? had nothing to do with it?they lend tremendous credence to the Anthropic Principle. Something caused the Big Bang?something external to, and exceeding the magnitude of, this universe.
TXatheist :
True, but it?s not anti-intellectual or illogical to consider that if it was created, the being capable of creating the entire universe is also capable of determining its laws of governance.
And just why would this something have to be eternal? What do you think of quantum evolution theory and the idea of a multiverse? What is your response when when Hawking says he doesn’t think that the universe (as in everything) has a beginning? I mean, Ross sees the Big Bang as a creation event. Not everybody in astrophysics and quantum physics sees it that way, and I’m inclined to agree with them. After all, it’s really that we can’t see past the event known as the big bang, not that we know it is a beginning. There may or may not be something on the other side. It may be a God, or it may be another universe dying, or it may be something entirely unfathomable. Plus, cause and effect is a law known to govern this universe, but there is nothing to say that it effects any possible mechanisms outside this universe, but that’s really getting into some deep metaphysics.
oh wait, you said external, not eternal.
sorry.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Well, considering that there is absolutely no way of ever recreating or simulating another Big Bang event?and that it is physically impossible to see any thing, state or condition that predates that event (and therefore, any pre-Big Bang concepts are, by definition purely conjecture), all that you just said sounds suspiciously like ?believe and you will believe??especially the part about ?and I’m inclined to agree with them.?
Being the practical scientist that I am, I?m content to concentrate on what we do know.
jcc
I contend that you’re not content, or you wouldn’t be so obsessed with “gaps” or missing transitional forms in evolution.
karen:
Yes, a poor choice of words; I should have said, ?I?m content to concentrate on what we can know.?
But, more importantly, I find it very curious, that you of all people should say that. I mean, after all, do you not demand a higher standard of proof of the resurrection, or is that a standard that only atheists are privileged to use? What?s sauce for the goose?
jcc
How do I demand a higher standard of proof for the resurrection? I asked for any proof,; you gave me hearsay. Is it not you who begs the higher standard, when as a scientist, you don’t recognise what is in front of you, but as a Christian, you will grasp at straws?
If that’s what you think, then either I haven’t been sufficiently articulating my point or you really haven’t really been listening. Or perhaps we are both coming from such diametrically opposing world views that we’re just incapable of reaching coming ground. When I say ‘believe and you will believe,’ I am illustrating the circular reasoning of faith itself – the fact that faith as a method to knowledge can be applied evenly to all ideas, no matter how mutually exclusive those ideas may be.
Theoretical physics is not an application of faith. It is, to use your own words, conjecture. Unproven? Yes, but built upon strong mathematical principles and other tested data. It is a door that at least has a comparably solid and theft-proof key, next to the wide open skeleton keys of faith. And don’t be so sure that I myself haven’t rapt hard upon the door of faith. My atheism is anything but a simple convenience. It is the result of my life and what I’ve learned thus far; of many painful realizations; of many fruitful and positive awakenings from stifling credulity.
And here is the real linchpin – the real double standard. All scientific conclusions, not matter how strong the evidence, are provisional. Even Copernican theory is provisional, in a sense. If someone could figure out a way to prove it wrong, then science would adjust and new theories would arise. Faith, on the other hand, is not provisional at all, for it is based in official cannon and dogma. I am aware that Ross claims to have pinned his entire faith on the validity of certain scientific ideas (such as the big bang being the beginning,) but he is definitely the exception. Faith finds a way of holding on to dogma no matter what the facts say, and that’s all the creationism/ID movement really is – a struggle to hold on.
The only real reason the ID/creationism should not be taught in a science class is because it is not established science. They haven’t earned the right – they haven’t done the work. Philosophy class? Maybe. Current events? absolutely. Science? Not until they have a stronger case. Judging from their cheap wedge tactics and transparent motivations, I’m not holding my breath. But who knows? Maybe they’ll surprise me.
jcc:
That’s a statement I find intriguing.
When it comes to human affairs, I think perhaps the standards vary widely from those of speculation as to the origins of life and/or the universe.
Science does tend to correct itself far more regularly, than religion, to my uninformed eyes. 1 of the initial attractions for me vis-a-vis skepticism.
It also seems that skeptics are more prone to correct 1 another than theists. Not positing an absolute: observation only. I could be wrong on this.
Really, it all boils down to guesswork.
Some guesses are better than others, I’d say.
P.S, copying & pasting actually does work for a long link, the pasted link simply goes way off the perimeters of the post. It’s still there. A better technique is to perhaps separate parts of the link w/a RETURN.
P.S.S, I still reserve the right to ridicule & mock, BTW. It’s part of my nature to poke & joke. Sorry. Just don’t take it personal.
karen:
You asked for proof of a historic human event. I gave you the only proof possible for such a phenomenon: a written record, the only method available at the time for preserving it. Sure, it would help if it were backed up by forensic evidence (of which there is some, but nothing conclusive) but, as with virtually all other historic human activity, it?s all we have.
I ask for fossils that indicate what I should expect to see if Darwin were correct, but you are only able to produce a partial, inconclusive record as well?again, it?s all we have.
You conclude Darwin is right because you choose to based on that spotty physical record and the plausibility of the theory, but that?s not all. Your choice was also heavily influenced by personal experiences that led you to reject Christianity and embrace Atheism. Any ?gaps? in evolution you assume will eventually be filled in by future discoveries and confirm the theory?something, you choose to put your faith in because of what you know and what you have experienced.
My story is very similar. I conclude Christ is the Son of God because of the textual criticism of the New Testament and the internal consistency of the theology. But, that?s not all. My choice was also heavily influenced by the results of the Cosmic Background Radiation Explorer satellite in 1992. Results that essentially confirmed the Big Bang theory and caused me to re-examine the claims of Naturalism and redirected my curiosity toward theology. Since then, I, like you, have had personal experiences that have reinforced that belief. I also, like you, have no direct or irrefutable proof of what I believe, but, like you, I do have plausible evidence for it. I choose to put my faith in it because of the combination of what I know and what I have experienced.
We both have our individual standards for belief. Unfortunately, mine doesn?t satisfy yours and yours doesn?t satisfy mine. The only thing that will change this situation is for one of us to experience something new that will force us to reevaluate the presumptions upon which we?ve based our belief.
reluctantatheist:
I agree. I too, was highly skeptical of Christianity, but as I dug into it deeper and took time to understand the historical context in which the New Testament was written, I found that it corrected my misinterpretation of it. The parts I had rejected for most of my life I later realized were really palimpsests?the truer, deeper meaning had been obscured by my lack of historical context and just plain bad teaching of it to me when I was a kid.
Thanks for the pasting tip.
I didn?t take it so much as personal as just being frustrated at not being taken seriously.
Funny how we can look at the exact same evidence and then draw completely different conclusions. Makes me almost want to go all post-modern. Almost.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
But, by saying
that is a Post-Modern mindset. Sure, in theory, Copernicus could be wrong, but in reality, every single observation indicates he?s right. The objective reality of the results of the observations never changes.
karen:
Oh, I still have lots of theological questions but I?m not searching for answers to those here (that would sorta be like asking for a taco at a sushi bar).
I initially came here out of curiosity. The vast majority of my friends are people of some degree of faith, and I?ve never gotten to know any really ?devout? atheists like I?ve found here. Conversing with you and the others here since last summer has been a fascinating learning experience for me. I?ve learned so much about how you all think, what motivates you and what experiences and realizations you?ve had that brought you all to where you are in your ?faith? journey. And I?ve learned the most from you, karen. I know you often find me to be ?dumbfounding,? but I often wonder what lasting effects our conversations will have on you?if they?ve given you cause to consider new things or reconsider some old. And I must say that it?s never been boring.
Okay, look. The people of Kansas have allowed this ID crap. That doesn’t mean the rest of the US will.
I think they should offer a choice in all schools. There’d be a “science” class and a “Bible Humping” class, and kids could choose which class they want to take. Not the parents, THE KIDS!
The kids are the ones learning. And most of the time, the kids of bible humping parents will choose a bible humping class. I can almost guarantee this.
Alexandra,
“Bible Humping” (love that term!) class shouldn’t be taught in public schools – at least not as a class unto itself. That would require you (if you currently are working as well as going to school) and me to subsidize the teaching of a single religion in a publicly-funded institution. Tax dollars should not be used to educate people on their faith.
But, if they wanted to cover Christianity and other current world religions in a “world religions” type class, and they covered all religions in an equal manner, as an elective, I wouldn’t complain. ID could be taught there, or even in a philosophy class.
The problem with ID being taught as science is VERY simple; ID cannot be applied to the scientific method and scientific predictions cannot be made using the theory, therefore, it is not science and should not be taught as such.
Proponents of ID have discovered that American’s are woefully ignorant when it comes to science and therefore have begun exploiting that ignorance by attaching “scientific-sounding” language to their argument, confusing most on how it is or isn’t science. They have also bypassed the scientific community and went straight to the public with their “theory”. For me, this instantly renders their argument for ID incredulous.
If they feel strongly about ID, put it to the test. Submit their “findings” to scientific journals and let their peers decide if it is a valid theory – not a scientifically ignorant American public.
Boston Creme Pie- 2 Pack
Been interesting to see the audience change over the years too as I Great as always. Saw them in 77,2 t…
Curiosly enough, I was watching Ellen Johnson at the convention on c-span; she made a reference about a Thomas Jefferson quote,”The truth will stand on it’s own”. She was proud when she spoke those words. Three questions; why are you atheists so worried about separation of church and state? The truth will stand on it’s own right? Last question; I wonder where Thomas Jefferson came up with that quote? You know; the quote everyone in the conference was clapping to.