Utterly Meaningless

Daryl,
I just wanted to address your comment regarding “if the right wins and creationism is taught in govt. schools…’.
I appreciate that you looked at the merits of the ideas in that article. I think after you did that, you took a wrong turn by assigning labels to certain people who hold certain views. My belief is when people are labeled that causes them to be put in a box, allowing for their ideas to be dismissed easier and labeled as “merit-less”.
I believe you further extrapolated that Intelligent Design proponents are also pushing for prayer in school as part of a “religious agenda” for govt. schools. As an Intelligent Design proponent, I do not want the Bible brought in a science class or any other class in a public school. Although, I don’t think it or any other book should be banned from schools on the basis of the religious viewpoint it represents. Intellectual freedom and diversity. I do not want prayer restored to the public schools. Although, I would not want to forbid any student who wanted to pray at school. Individual freedom. Although, I do not agree with evolution, I would not want to push evolution teaching out of schools. Intellectual freedom. I agree natural selection and mutation are a fact. I do disagree that new information results from those processes and that micro-evolution over millions of year can account for macro-evolution or new species. Information is lost through those processes, not gained; scientists have yet to prove differently.
We must as homeschool parents realize that intellectual freedom and intellectual diversity are not the sole property of certain groups with a certain belief systems. We are coming to a place where even looking at the scientific weaknesses of evolution is causing an outrage by the evolutionists. Schools should allow for intellectual freedom and intellectual diversity. Students should be allowed to think for themselves and explore the controversy on scientific grounds by having access to ID scientific arguments. Intellectual freedom. This should be done without a bias from the teacher and school. A belief that “evolution might not have happened” is not a view that is the sole property of any group, even a religious group.
Here is an article link to an article that I would like presented or referred to in a science class. If it is relevant enough to be printed in a publication belonging to the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution, it and a discussion of the ideas represented should be allowed in a public school class.
This article was published August 4, 2004, in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published in Washington D.C.
In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
discov...d=2177

Annette

Annette,
I wasn’t speaking of you but religious conservatives in general. Dollars to donuts that the vast majority of ID proponents would self-identify as such.

Thanks, Daryl. But you are speculating. I personally don’t agree with your assertion/assumption/generalization. I do not see ICR or AIG promoting school prayer or any other morality issue in schools. In fact, I have heard several ID proponents discourage the idea.
The Southern Baptist Convention (religious conservatives I would think) called for Christian parents to homeschool their children or enroll them in Christian schools NOT to try and reform govt. schools. Anyways, how can public schools realistically be spiritually reformed by adding school prayer and the Bible in classes? That would be the point wouldn’t it, spiritually reform schools? The end product would not and could not be achieved. It would be condemnable (NOT commendable) to short circuit the process of changing hearts by legislatively adding prayer and the Bible in govt. schools.
I would be willing though to hear of cases when you document your assertion that IDers are pushing for prayer and Bible in govt. schools. I’ll certainly be looking for these instances to see who is actually doing this.
Annette

I agree with this article. For years my kids have been taught everything BUT reading, writing, math or history. They go on and on in school about social issues, such as AIDS awareness in 3rd grade, DARE starting in kindergarten, the body mass index program, every fundraiser you can think of (23 in total last year), and once middle school comes around they start “family life” complete with banana-condom demonstrations and graphic discussions that would make a hooker blush. There is no time for much else. Multiplication tables? A 4th-grade teacher told me they’re too hard. They use calculators and charts with answers. Cursive writing? Who writes anymore? And no one needs to learn to spell since we all have computers. What happens when there is a job application to fill out by hand? Uh…

This is why we home school.

Annette,
You’re not seriously arguing that teaching creationism in the schools is not part of the agenda from the Right, are you? Yeah– maybe some ID proponents are just looking for scientific data and the limits of evolutionary theory. Others really are using it as a subterfuge to get creationism in the schools. That is beyond debate. Just read the transcripts from the School Board meetings in Dover, PA.

Simple fact is, ID proponents are, obstinately, without shame, and in the absence of properly examined evidence, demanding the acceptance of their pet notion that there is an Intelligence responsible for the origin and diversity of life.

Now, where on earth would that notion of an Intelligence come from? Wouldn’t be RELIGION, would it?

To Speedwell:
The above translated: stubborn and ignorant.

Speedwell,
You are proposing that you KNOW the character and the intelligence of ID proponents. How would you KNOW? Have you done a scientific study to prove your assertion? What is your criteria for establishing that someone is stubborn versus just showing true, personal conviction? Without shame? Sounds like a value judgment to me that you think there is something IDers need to be ashamed of. What is the point in assigning value judgments to certain people when you aren’t able to prove it in such a way to allow others to find some merit in your assertions that all IDers are stubborn and ignorant?
In the absence of properly examined evidence???
How do you define “properly examined”? Do you consider the Piltdown Man (hoax) an example of “properly examined evidence”? A modern ape jaw and a skull? How many years did ID proponents have to wait for that theory to be proven a hoax? Approx. 45 years. How many “scientific papers” were written on this discovery called the “missing link”? Is 500 “scientific” papers off the mark?
Let me give you an example of “evidence properly examined”:
Mammoths from Walt Brown’s “In the Beginning” (online edition):
creati...s.html
See Table 11 in this link below.
Remember that theory Daryl mentioned awhile back that says that ‘the simplest theory explaining the most details is most likely to be correct’? I see that the Hydroplate theory holds more water than some of the popular theories relating to the mammoths. I consider this section in Brown’s book proof of a careful examination of the evidence where all theories were proposed–NOT excluded. For evolutionists to explain the evidence, they have to exclude any explanations that does not fit with evolution such as a global flood. This does not fit my definition of “evidence properly examined”.
Note the creationist Walt Brown is not excluding opposing theories; he is examining them.
creati...134060

BTW, I don’t want ID accepted, I just want it acknowledged that there are two different models for origins and that there are legitimate scientists that are if they aren’t ID proponents that they are open to intelligent design or flaws in evolution. Let’s pause for a second to look at an IDer, Johnathan Safarti of AIG. Safarti is capable of playing chess against 10 people at one time–blindfolded (moves are called out) and can win them all. I’d say his intelligence is remarkable and he doesn’t deserve to have his ideas cast aside on the basis he has certain beliefs that conflict with evolutionist’s beliefs.
Intellectual freedom even for those with “religious beliefs”.
Annette

Daryl wrote: >>>Annette,
You’re not seriously arguing that teaching creationism in the schools is not part of the agenda from the Right, are you? Yeah– maybe some ID proponents are just looking for scientific data and the limits of evolutionary theory. Others really are using it as a subterfuge to get creationism in the schools. That is beyond debate. Just read the transcripts from the School Board meetings in Dover, PA. >>>

Daryl,
You have used a label in your comments which throws me off from your question. Who is the Right? I will grant you that there is a political right and a political left–liberalism and conservatism. But those terms are not, IMO, always successfully applied to those who are religious and those who are non-religious; conservatives do not always = religious and liberals do not always = non-religious.
Moving beyond the label, I’ll address the idea of an agenda by creationists. If creationists are trying to force science classes to discuss the nature and character of God, morality, the purposes of God for creation, religious doctrines, and such; then I think that Intelligent Design teaching is not being presented correctly.
Intelligent Design teaching should be done in such a way that it can be just as supportive of “Little Green Men” as being the possible creators. As far as it being a subterfuge for teaching a religious belief, I don’t think that is the case. I think that buzz-words are being used by the media and evolution proponents to create that initial impression as a strategy to prevent any intellectual opposition to evolution. I think if people dig deeper, they’ll see there is a scientific basis for the teaching of Intelligent Design.
To tell you the truth after some thought about this, I really don’t want public school science teachers teaching ID anymore than I would want them to carry out school prayer or to teach the Bible. I don’t trust them to do ID correctly. However, allowing for students to investigate Intelligent Design as part of science class and providing access to the materials via the internet or school library in a non-hostile atmosphere–meaning teachers supporting (not mocking) students who chose ID over evolution; would be good IMO.
As long as the controversy and violations of IDers individual’s freedoms and rights are taking place over this issue, there really isn’t such a thing as a “defeat” for the IDers. Overturning Scopes was not the demise of evolution, and negative decisions toward the ID theory from courts and school boards–will not be the downfall of ID. In fact, the evolutionary response of dealing with ID, is only going to increase the popularity of ID. Do you have a teen-ager? Continually telling them they can’t have something, only makes them want it. Hmmm…wasn’t that how the Biblical Adam and Eve got in trouble?
Just my thoughts. Sorry for the length. But I do enjoy the dialogue with you and Speedwell.
~Annette

Tell me that the Dover school board is not trying to use ID to push religion into the schools.

cobran...1.html

I couldn’t find the transcripts online. Have the link? I found the words “weaknesses in evolution” when I searched it.
Annette

I found this snip at aclupa...n.html

The school district policy mandates that Dover public schools treat “intelligent design” as a bona fide scientific theory competing with the scientific theory of evolution in order to develop a balanced science curriculum. Teachers are also required to read a statement to students in ninth grade biology classes that includes the following language:

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. (end of snip)

Daryl, can you help me to understand what you think the school board is specifically asking for besides the above? Or is the above what you have a problem with?
Annette

My point was that some ID proponents really want to teach religion, specifically Christianity, and they view ID as a way to do that. The gentleman quoted above is a member of the School Board. Can you honestly say that he seems to be interested in scientific inquiry, wherever it may lead?

And to get at your question from earlier in the thread. The Religious Right is a well known term for conservative (religiously and politically) Christians. It is not a perjorative.

Daryl,
I thought you knew of a link to a transcript of the meeting. The comment that you referred to has no context. This person could have said it at the meeting to someone as he was on the way out the door. Who alleges he said it? All nine parents that are involved in the lawsuit? That’s not all I have to say about it, but let me first give you a hypothetical situation. I apologize in advance for the length. I’ll try to be briefer from this point on. Please let me know if my length is in violation of blog etiquette. I trust you have the power to delete my response.

My hypothetical situation for you:
You are leaving church one Sunday, and an acquaintance of yours, an administrator of a private Christian school, pulls you aside to talk to you. He tells you that on Friday afternoon a handful of students came to his office. The students were concerned that the science material that the school was using might not be equipping them well enough to deal with arguments in favor of evolution. The students requested that the school find five scientists from various fields of study who were evolution proponents for the purposes of a question/answer panel discussion in the evening for all interested students of the school. The parents would be invited to attend and participate as well. Thus, the students and parents would be able to ask these scientists their questions regarding scientific theories while the scientists can offer their scientific explanations supportive of evolution. The administrator now gets to the point as to why he is telling you all this. He is interested in fulfilling the students’ request but he has two problems. One, he needs some help finding scientists who would be willing to take part in this panel discussion and he would like your assistance in this. The administrator than explains the next problem he has. There will be some parental opposition to the idea as some of the parents see evolution as anti-God in nature. You assure him that evolution isn’t anti-God–it’s just science.
The time arrives for the panel discussion and everything is in place. The first fifteen minutes of the discussion is very encouraging to you. The audience is asking very intelligent questions and they seem to be seriously considering the answers given. Then without warning, in an answer to a question, one of the scientists begins explaining that only the ignorant insist that there is a God while ignoring the overwhelming evidence for evolution. He continues on for another minute with more of his atheistic comments. The administrator, realizing that parents are visibly upset, calls a halt to the discussion. The night is over. You are not happy because you did not realize that this particular scientist would take this opportunity to push his own personal, anti-God agenda. It was not your intention to make the evening about atheism, but rather a night of scientific inquiry and discussion for those students that asked for this meeting.
Then what follows, you hear in church circles and on the Christian radio station “how evolution teaching has at its heart an agenda to whitewash every vestige of God from our society” as displayed at the Christian school’s meeting. Certain parents have taken this opportunity to milk this situation for all they can, because it proves their anti-evolutionary perceptions.
Now, in this hypothetical situation, you and I know that evolutionists and ID proponents can talk about scientific arguments for and against evolution–I hope we do anyways. Those scientists who are atheists and who push their agenda into the evolution/ID debate are out there. But they should not be able to rule the day and succeed in keeping students (as in this hypothetical situation) from learning about the scientific arguments for evolution. The door of opportunity (in this hypothetical situation) may have closed in that school, because there were two opposing agendas with students in the middle who just wanted to inquire and consider scientific matters from more than one viewpoint.
The atheist in the hypothetical situation was zealous for his beliefs. So was the actual person you referred to with his comments–given they are not just “alleged” comments. The scientific arguments for evolution still exist and could have been explored by the students–in spite of the atheist bringing up his arguments that there isn’t a God. The scientific arguments for ID can still be explored by students in Dover–in spite of the board person who made the religious comments. In the hypothetical situation, the students were not harmed by hearing the atheist’s opinion on God. Those were just words. The students already knew there were people in the world who did not believe in God and that some of those people were working in the sciences. The parents who were milking it in order to fit their own perceptions that evolution equals atheism, needed to consider the desires of their children who wanted to explore the issues of evolution and creation for themselves. The parents should have trusted the students to hear a differing opinion than their own. DITTO in the Dover situation. No one was intellectually “tainted” by the comment of the zealous board member, nor would be anyone by an evolution disclaimer or the presence of an ID textbook in the library. Parents and students have more than likely seen a crucifix at some point with a person hanging on it. This was not a shocking statement or word picture, nor is it indicative that Intelligent Design is equal to to teaching religion. This situation is only being used to keep a misperception going. Evolution proponents are milking it hard. In general, IMO, the intolerance for ID in this country is over the top, beyond credible.
Intellectual freedom for students; not intellectual oppression that resembles communists’ attempts, as in N. Korea and China, to keep certain information from their citizens. Intelligent Design theory, in the small ways that the school board wants the topic addressed, is asking for very little. But it is sufficient to be supportive of students who are interested in exploring the topic and not pushy enough to make the teachers feel that they are “teaching” or “approving” of ID. Let a school board member read the statement.
To answer your question about the board member. I don’t know about his interest in scientific inquiry. I believe he does not completely understand ID, but by what the school board is asking for, there are people who apparently do understand. A person would have to be very stupid or insane to think that someone who is hostile to ID and creationism as some science teachers are, that they could ever do it justice rather than harm. I would ask you to look deeper and see if IDers are really asking for the “teaching of religion” or even ID itself but rather just an acknowledgment of the ID theory and the ongoing debate between evolutionists and IDers. I think it is also a way to support students are mocked by their science teachers for believing in ID. Perhaps, the school board is hearing from parents who say the science teachers are trying to undermine the student’s beliefs and the parents’ teachings of origins.
Intellectual freedom exists for you and I to engage in this evolution/ID discussion, that freedom ought to exist for students in a public school. ID won’t dumb students down, it will cause them to think rather than just regurgitate the party lines. Not a bad thing, for kids in a school, but it could be bad for a government.
~Annette -who will make an honest effort to use less words the next time. 🙂