Intelligent Design on Trial

n-Track Studio Discussion Forum
21

Contrary to Toker’s assertion that

Quote:

ID is NOT creationism.
the fact is that it is. The courts found (as most of us already know) that ID is a sneaky way for the religious right to get around the constitution (separation of church and state). The fact that ID does not actually mention God is irrelevant. Documents and texts have been found that were completely edited with the original “God” removed and “Intelligent Designer” inserted.

It is a silly notion that people would not be smart enough to realize the subterfuge. But there it is. And proponents of ID who claim that it has nothing to do with God and Creationism are at the vary least deluding themselves and probably flat out lying. And this is what makes me angry about “religious” folk who push the ID nonsense. It isn’t that they believe in a childlike story, it’s that they are willing to lie and go against their purported beliefs just to gain power and status.

Sad really…

Quote:

You and I may honestly disagree as to the merits of the taste of the blueberry pie and I must respect your opinion on that matter. But the minute you claim (without proof) that you manifested the blueberry pie out of a dingo’s hind quarters you have entered the realm of the irrational and, while I continue to respect your right to hold that belief, I am not obliged in any way to respect the belief itself.



I agree Bill, except that a dingo pooping out a blueberry pie doesn’t seem so far fetched when you consider that the people of the US voted in an idiot for President… twice. But I agree that you do not need to respect the belief, just the person with the belief. And I think that is enough to keep most of us from labeling everyone who believes in the creation story as irrational. The belief may be irrational, but the person need not be labeled as such.

Mike
22

Mike - show us where Intelligent Design says that the Earth was created in 6 or 7 days.
ID is NOT the same as the creation story outlined in Genesis - I shouldn’t have used the term creationism.
If you persist in saying that ID is the same as the creation story, then I keep saying that it is not.
Please look this up on the ID web site.

I post as Mr Soul not Toker - thanks.
I only posted as Toker recently because my account was screwed up & I couldn’t post as Mr Soul.

Quote:

Not that it matters, but yes ID lost.

It may not matter to you but it matters to me. I don’t want my kid’s being taught ID in school. My kid’s learn about God at Church.
23

Mike, Mike is correct, ID right now is part of the creationist political strategy - they did mention the “wedge” document in the show, didn’t they?
Here:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

On the other hand, MIke, Mike is correct, in that ID does not strictly entail creationism - as Behe himself admitted in his testimony.


So, Mike and Mike, you are both correct!


Although I DO want my kids taught about the ID arguments - as philosophical arguments they are quite respectable, have a long history, are as a result culturally and historically significant, and it is not entirely clear that they fail - as philosophcial arguments. They DO fail as empirical science, since they invoke supernatural causes, and empirical science only works with empirical (natural) stuff.


There is lurking beneath all this an interesting problem - what happens when epistemologies (ways of knowing things) collide?
Yes, there are two different world views here, but we need to be clear where they differ - one claims that a religious way of knowing trumps modern empirical science, at least in some areas.
The other claims that modern empirical science trumps religious ways of knowing.
Now, here’s the rub - suppose you wanted to offer evidence in favor of one way of knowing over the other - what kind of evidence might you offer?
If you are an empiricist, you might say, “well, the empirical evidence justifies our commitment to empirical evidence as primary.”
A faith-based way of viewing the world might say, “we accept faith because it rests on revealed truth.”
Both justifications are viciously circular.
And, curiously enough, there is no deeper level to look to for justifications.
So…absent some conversion of the empiricist to faith based ways of knowing the world, or the faith based believer to empiricism, the conversation ultimately won’t get anywhere.


But we still have to live together, and most people agree that elimiating poverty, advancing medicine, and creating better living conditions are the most important goals - and with regard to these, modern empirical science has proven itself over and over and over and over - and hence those who are anti-science, such as the creationist folks, need to be given a chance to make their arguments, and then if they are proven wrong, step aside.
ID needs to be taught as a philosphical and historical argument, not as science.


Unless, of course, we think the goals of fighting poverty, etc., are not worth pursuing.
Be it noted well that many folks in the ID movement are dispensationalists - end-timers, who think we only have a few years lfft.
They are foolish, and should be given all the space possible to speak their minds, but should have no - none, zero, zilch - place at the policy table, when it comes to funding science, determining how it is taught, deciding what to do about global warming, how to fight poverty, how to encourage the spread of democracy globally, and the like.

24

Yes - I acknowledge that ID right now is part of the creationist political strategy, which is what I meant when I said it is their intent.

Quote:

On the other hand, MIke, Mike is correct, in that ID does not strictly entail creationism - as Behe himself admitted in his testimony.

Yes - that’s my point.

When we went down this path, Dr Guitar cited the “creation story”.
Saying that ID is irrational is not saying that the “creation story” is irrational, because the two things are NOT the same.

Quote:

Although I DO want my kids taught about the ID arguments - as philosophical arguments they are quite respectable, have a long history, are as a result culturally and historically significant,

Well my friend,
I am assuming that you do not mean that you are in favor of ID being taught in school, as science and as an alternative to evolution.
Because if you do mean this, then you & I are opposed.
And herein lies the problem.
The ID people want ID taught as science, not as philosophy, which it may or may not be - I’ll leave that to the philosophers like yourself to decide. I wouldn’t be opposed to a science teacher teaching how ID is not science because that could be very educational.
25
Quote:

It may not matter to you but it matters to me. I don't want my kid's being taught ID in school. My kid's learn about God at Church.


Arrrgghhh! I said I wasn't going to get into this... but WHY NOT? I want my kids taught EVERYTHING. Most importantly, I want them taught to THINK for themselves. If they are taught to think and question things for themselves, won't they be in better shape to make some kind of difference in the world?

I agree with your "God at Church" education Mike. I just think that there would be fewer "religious" nut-jobs running around if kids were taught both sides of every story so they can reason it out for themselves... or not... but give them the opportunity and the background material.

The main reason I said "Not that it matters" is that my kids will learn about ID, Evolution, Creationism, and "religion" whether it's taught at school, church or not. It's MY responsibility... (and yours, don't depend on gummint to make the right choices all the time) They are at church just about every time the doors are open but we talk about everything later at home. I encourage them to learn everything about everything and think for themselves. That's all. Maybe I shoulda wrote "Not that it matters to me" and put another disclaimer of some sort on there.

It's all good man.

D
26
Quote:

Arrrgghhh! I said I wasn't going to get into this... but WHY NOT?

Gotcha' going :-)

Yes - I agree in principle that kids should learn about as much as they can and they should make their own decisions.
For example, I don't particularly like the fact that my son, who's 15, is a Democrat just because I am.
He says that's not the case, but I think it is.
I encourage him to learn about Republicans/conservatives & learn what they believe, and that he may find somethings that they say that are worthy.

Quote:

The main reason I said "Not that it matters" is that my kids will learn about ID, Evolution, Creationism, and "religion" whether it's taught at school, church or not. It's MY responsibility... It's all good man.

Right but the issue we're talking about here is whether ID should be taught at school or not, as science and as an alternative to evolution.
The answer is clear - no, because ID is not science, it's false science.
I'm not going to teach my kids about something that is false - end of story.

Is it all good?
Then should kids be taught that coummunism, socialism and fascism are just equivalent governmental systems to ours - no better or worse?
Basically, that's what the ID people want.
Evolution is just a theory - right? (I'm laughing as a write this).

Should kid's be taught about Nazism and racism at school?
How about masterbation or sadism at school?
Or witchcraft or Lamarck's theory (as fact)?
You could argue that it is important for kid's to know some of this stuff.

Mr Soul
27

Hi Mike,

I won’t take each point there but some of them should be discussed (not “taught”) others probably not. I think we actually agree on a lot of this stuff. All I ask is that you not lump me in with the “religious” nut cases. A BIG portion if the “spotlight religious crowd” in no way exemplifies my understanding and beliefs of what Christians are supposed to be. Those wackos give the rest of us a bad rap.

I had to have a very serious discussion with my teenager about this. In Social Studies class a few years ago, they were discussing the Muslim faith for some reason. Of course, the fanatical Muslim wackos took center stage in the discussion. Anyway, I had to point out to the boy the atrocities against our fellow humans in the name of Christianity and how bad fanatical “Religious zeal” can corrupt.

It stuck, because now he reigns ME in every once in a while. :)

D

28
Quote: (Mr Soul @ Nov. 13 2007, 3:28 PM)

Right - there's really no debate because ID is false, i.e., it is not science, but people are irrational.

Quote:

Saying that ID is irrational is not saying that the "creation story" is irrational, because the two things are NOT the same.


I don't mind you saying that ID is irrational. I don't mind you saying that the creation story is irrational. What I mind is you lumping the whole of people who believe these stories as irrational.

Your original statement said that ID is false (no argument there) and then you go on to "imply" that people who believe in such are irrational. That is where I have a problem. I lumped creationism and ID together, because the foundation of ID is creationism and many people believe (in some part) in the creation story. And I believe calling "people" irrational just because they have faith in something you don't is divisive and hurtful.

I know this may seem like a small point, but it is important and one I made days ago in my original response to your post. I think the world is divided enough without the general rhetoric thrown in to make it more so. THe first part of the post,

Quote:

Right - there's really no debate because ID is false, i.e., it is not science


would have been fine in my book. It was the zinger at the end that turned my stomach.

Mike
29

Just spit-balling here but maybe - just maybe - calling people irrational when they spout irrational opinions is exactly what we should do.

I mean, by being all polite and PC about it when people say stupid things like “the world was created in six days” we sort of validate their irrationality - we fail to give them any kind of meaningful feedback that might actually help them apply critical thinking to their ideas. We condescend, pat them on the head and, in essence, say “Now go outside and play with the other mentally handicapped children and let the adults talk.” Depriving them of the opportunity to be one of the adults.

I know that it is my friends - my real friends - who will take me aside when I do or say something idiotic and say: “Bill, you’re being an ass.” They aren’t being disrespectful or belittling; they are telling me the truth. And I think that’s what you do when you genuinely respect someone rather than pretend to respect someone - you tell them the truth.

30
Quote: (BillClarke @ Nov. 16 2007, 4:18 PM)

Just spit-balling here but maybe - just maybe - calling people irrational when they spout irrational opinions is exactly what we should do.

I mean, by being all polite and PC about it when people say stupid things like "the world was created in six days" we sort of validate their irrationality - we fail to give them any kind of meaningful feedback that might actually help them apply critical thinking to their ideas. We condescend, pat them on the head and, in essence, say "Now go outside and play with the other mentally handicapped children and let the adults talk." Depriving them of the opportunity to be one of the adults.

I know that it is my friends - my real friends - who will take me aside when I do or say something idiotic and say: "Bill, you're being an ass." They aren't being disrespectful or belittling; they are telling me the truth. And I think that's what you do when you genuinely respect someone rather than pretend to respect someone - you tell them the truth.

Ok Bill, have it your way. So lets call people irrational when they believe in the creation story. In fact, if we do that we should also call people irrational when they say they believe in God (there is no proof after all). And how about we call people morons when they eat meat (it IS very bad for the body). And maybe should call people fool hearty when they get behind the wheel of a car (it is a very dangerous proposition).

Who is it that gets to decide when we are not following your concept of what is right and wrong? If you eat french fries in front of me is it ok if every time you do it I read you the riot act about how doing so is dangerous to your health?

Seems to me that lots of people occasionally do irrational things in spite of knowledge to the contrary. Should we always call them on it? Have you reached the point of perfection where you get to decide who gets to be "one of the adults"?

I really do not think it is being "PC" to allow others their viewpoints. I don't come to your church and spout how you are all going to hell because you do not believe as I do. That is called mutual respect and tolerance. There may be people you know who think you are irrational because you eat meat. Are you? Should your whole existence be weighed on the fact that you eat meat or are you as a person more than that?

Bill, if you feel it is a good idea to go around judging others and letting them know that they are irrational for whatever reason you deem fit, knock yourself out. Maybe if you do it often enough, someone will give you a hand. :D

Mike
31
Quote: (DrGuitar @ Nov. 16 2007, 7:42 PM)

Bill, if you feel it is a good idea to go around judging others and letting them know that they are irrational for whatever reason you deem fit, knock yourself out.
Maybe if you do it often enough, someone will give you a hand.
:D

Mike

No, you're not getting it.

What is irrational is holding to a belief which is flatly and patently and demonstrably untrue. A belief for which there is no evidence either way isn't irrational. It may be unsupported, but we all carry around unsupported beliefs - they're called faith.

If you insist on believing that your dead grandmother's rocking chair is trying to kill you you don't get patted on the head and sent out to play, you get room and board at the laughing academy - because your belief is flatly and patently and demostrably untrue (ie. irrational). Why then should we treat an equally preposterous belief in the age of the world or how long it took to make it with such reverence and respect?

Maybe - and remember I DID say maybe - if these people had the irrationality of their beliefs pointed out occasionally they'd have reason to reconsider and perhaps even learn to apply some critical thinking. If they are always told that it's perfectly valid to believe a thing that can be convincingly shown to be untrue they have little reason to do otherwise and potentially become targets for unscrupulous characters.

Maybe - just maybe - we do them a disservice.
32
Quote:

No, you're not getting it.

What is irrational is holding to a belief which is flatly and patently and demonstrably untrue. A belief for which there is no evidence either way isn't irrational. It may be unsupported, but we all carry around unsupported beliefs - they're called faith.


But I do get it. People smoke. People eat fried foods. It is proven that these things will kill you (unlike the belief that the world is only 6000 years old). Are people who do these proven, dangerous things to themselves irrational? Should their whole existence be judged on this one thing? What if they smoke and eat fried foods? How about if they smoke, eat fried foods and believe in the creation story?

Just like the people who have heard of evolution and seen the data and still believe the creation story, there are people who have seen the data on smoking and eating poorly and still do these things while continuing to ignore it. Are they all irrational? Are you? Can a rational person eat a hamburger?

I still say what is or isn't rational is in the eye of the beholder and unless you are free from any human fault, then your vision is best left a little blurry so as not to see the minute faults of others. After all, a belief of another that does not concern you and does not step on your toes is at worst a small thing indeed in the grand scheme. In other words, lets not call names when we do not agree with the thoughts of others and have no idea how they got there (unless, of course, it breaks the law).

And last time I looked, we still have religious freedom in this country...
33
Quote: (DrGuitar @ Nov. 16 2007, 10:28 PM)

But I do get it.
People smoke. People eat fried foods.
It is proven that these things will kill you ...

Smoking and over-indulging in fried foods IS irrational - and I say this as someone who does both things. I am not offended that you label them as irrational. In fact, I'm grateful - reiterating the irrationality of these behaviours may well help free me of them. At the very least, it forces me to consider my choices.

Freedom of Religion doesn't mean freedom from thinking. Your country has freedom of religion but doesn't allow polygamy to be practiced by those who claim it as a precept of their religion. Animal sacrifice - even for religious reasons - is frowned upon. I imagine that human sacrifice would result in at least a stiff fine.
34

burgers and cigg’s,now thats religion!
of course you dont wanna eat and smoke like a fiend,you wanna get really old and get alzhimers or just be so old ya gotta have someone come over and wipe yer A$$ for you,yeah,thats livin,healthy living magazine got nothin on this forum :agree:

35

I’m not suggesting that stupid beliefs be made illegal or anything because you’re right, a stupid belief that doesn’t step on my toes is indeed a small thing. Nor am I suggesting that people who believe the world is six thousand years old should be pointed at and laughed at in the streets - it slows traffic to a crawl.

It just occurs to me that placating and molly-coddling such beliefs is really just as much a disservice to these people as pointing and laughing would be.

Imagine a parent teacher association meeting somewhere and a parent stands up and says he wants the school to teach that the world is six thousand years old. At present, the school board goes to great lengths to attempt to accomodate this irrational request (and stepping on a great many toes in the process). I think it would be better if such a conversation went like this:

PARENT: I want you to teach that the world is six thousand years old.

TEACHER: I’m sorry but we won’t do that because there all the evidence says that it isn’t true. We’d first need some evidence that it was.

PARENT: Well, it says so in this book here…

TEACHER: Ah yes, the Bible. Well, I’ve got this other book here that says anyone who believes the Bible literally is a platypus and since platypii have no rights then…

PARENT: But MY book was written by God.

TEACHER: So was mine. See? It says so right here on the cover: Fundamentalists Are Platypii by God. Now, since you clearly aren’t a platypus I think we can agree that books ostensibly written by God do not constitute evidence. Right?.. Okay - next unreasonable request, please…

36
Quote: (Mr Soul @ Nov. 16 2007, 10:31 AM)

Yes - I acknowledge that ID right now is part of the creationist political strategy, which is what I meant when I said it is their intent.

Quote:

On the other hand, MIke, Mike is correct, in that ID does not strictly entail creationism - as Behe himself admitted in his testimony.

Yes - that's my point.

When we went down this path, Dr Guitar cited the "creation story".
Saying that ID is irrational is not saying that the "creation story" is irrational, because the two things are NOT the same.

Quote:

Although I DO want my kids taught about the ID arguments - as philosophical arguments they are quite respectable, have a long history, are as a result culturally and historically significant,

Well my friend,
I am assuming that you do not mean that you are in favor of ID being taught in school, as science and as an alternative to evolution.
Because if you do mean this, then you & I are opposed.
And herein lies the problem.
The ID people want ID taught as science, not as philosophy, which it may or may not be - I'll leave that to the philosophers like yourself to decide.
I wouldn't be opposed to a science teacher teaching how ID is not science because that could be very educational.

Mike, you did not read my post. Neither creationism nor the ID argument are empirical science, and hence ought not be included in a science class. In a history or philosophy class, yes.
37

Tom - yes I did read your post (did you read mine?).
I was simply asking for clarification which you provided.
But you & I differ on this, I wouldn’t want my kid’s learning about ID as philosophy in school.

Quote:

It was the zinger at the end that turned my stomach.

Sorry Mike but I’ve found that have to fight hard against the ID people because they are trying to drive a wedge into the schools/socieity (see Tom’s wedge link).
38

Really, Soul my brother? You’re kidding! There are several reasons to learn about ID arguments in a philosophy class, even in high school:

1. As logical puzzles they present significant problems, and working through those problems helps us think better.

2. They are part of our intellectual heritage - a heritage that is not intelligible without understanding the history of ID and similar arguments (and it’s worth noting that the ID arguments have not remained static through the centuries - they have taken different forms, and have been presented in different historical contexts, all of which matter and are fascinating). Ignorance about that heritage is bad b/c (a) we understand the world today through categories we’ve inherited, and which may no longer fit, but may be anachronistic, and hence harmful, or they may present alternatives that were mistakenly discarded; and (b) there is simply the joy of taking part in the great human adventure, the adventure of the mind through the centuries.

One doesn’t have to agree with Aristotle, Augustine, Averoes, Aquinas, or William Paley to see that they were smart cookies and what they wrote deserves respectful consideration. I think the argument fails, pretty obviously, for the reasons set out by Darwin and Richard Dawkins - but, still, it’s foolish not to study it, and it is a great disservice to students to exclude it from basic studies. But Americans have long been consumed by misology, and we stupidly do not require a philosophy component in secondary education. :)

39

Tom - yes I follow you, but I see a fundamental problem with doing this.
ID is framed as science, so are you suggesting that the teacher would somehow translate it into philosophy, because I don’t think you could teach it as is and just call it “philosophy”.
Do you follow what I’m saying?

40

I don’t think Tom is saying “Teach ID”. I think he is saying "Teach what ID is and isn’t, and what it portrays itself to be and what people’s opinions are about what it may be."

By the way, THE EARTH IS FLAT…
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

(I found it on the internet so it must be true)