Archbishop Naumann: either allow discussion of Intelligent Design into classrooms, or

[Libero]

Nevertheless, opponents of the theory say it has no place in public science classrooms and that it is a thinly veiled attempt to bring theology into the schools.

Whats the big Cahoot about anyway?

I have never done creation in science, in fact I have done both Scientific creation accounts, the Anthropic Principle, and the Defence of God in Religious Studies.

It seems to me that in fact the adults responsible for correcting this event are acting even less professional than many students would in such an instance - in fact the BBC news certainly seemed to imply that aswell…

 

[scriabin]

Here’s evidence of dissenting scientists. 500 of them.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This list is publicly updated on a quarterly basis – last update February 2006. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Developmental Biology
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia
Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc, Princeton
John Hey Assoc. Clinical Prof., Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi Fellow of American Geriatrics Society
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics, Texas A&M University Post-Doc Fellow: Carnegie Institute of Washington
William Dembski Ph.D., Mathematics University of Chicago
David Chapman Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Prof. of Genetics, University of Perugia (Ret.) Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia
Bernard d’Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)
Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry Hong Kong University
Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho
Fred Schroeder Ph.D. Marine Geology Columbia University
Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California (Los Angeles)
Ralph Seelke Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology University of Wisconsin, Superior
David Snoke Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of Pittsburgh
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM—1
WWW.DISSENTFROMDARWIN.ORG
Frank Tipler Prof. of Mathematical Physics Tulane University

 

[jdnation]

Atheism is easily inferred by the way science standards are done. And by science, it is really ONLY those that deal with Evolutionary theory. Macro-Evolution has become a dogma to many scientists, presumed and unproven. The reality is that the same empirical evidence is examined by everyone, evolutionists, creationists and advocates of ID. It’s the SAME evidence. But INTERPRETATIONS of that SAME evidence are made, and these INTERPRETATIONS are based on the biased presuppositions and philosophies of the individual examining them.

The point is, when it comes to ORIGINS science, which is always speculation and unable to be tested, either teach all theories or none at all. Macro-Evolution bases itself on atheistic presuppositions. Theistic macro-evolution is the same thing but with God tossed in at the beginning. The difference between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, is that theistic evolutionists agree with the materialist interpretations, whereas ID makes criticisms of them, and proposes a supernatural force as the solution (NOTE: ID does not rule out macro-evolution).

At the other end is Creationism. Specifically Biblical Creationism, and is the one I support. It is a stable model based on the historic works of Genesis in the Bible which has never changed its text. There is nothing controverting the Creation model and I believe there never will be.

Because Creationism is based on a biased presupposition (The Bible) it cannot be considered true science. And so, neither can Macro-Evolution, which is based on Materialistic philosophy (Which is just as ‘supernatural’ but they’d prefer not to think about it that way). Both these systems interpret evidence to suit their agendas. All it is, is deciding which one you’d rather believe in. The unchanging Word of God, or the constantly changing speculations of men.

Real Science… the stuff that gives space shuttles, medicines, computers, ships, submarines, food, shelter, vaccinations, etc. etc. will continue very well without having to consider either creationism or macro-evolution. That is because real science moves ahead on present day observational data and experiments, and not on the unobserved past.

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” - Dr Scott C. Todd,
Immunologist at Kansas State University: Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?’
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school’.” - Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5

Teach them all, or none at all…
[/right]​

 

[rlg94086]

Good for your teachers and your son’s teachers. It was mentioned in my son’s biology class last year. Should we catalog all anecdotal evidence and try to outdo each other? Not very scientific, Orogeny.

Orogeny:

Never once, not once, in all my science classes was athiesm mentioned. Not once. According to my two sons, the topic was never mentioned in their science classes.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this claim has any basis.

Peace

Tim

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orogeny:

Can you give an example of the unscientific defense you are speaking of?I would like to see some evidence of this claim. It is a very common claim amongst those who don’t accept evolution, but I have not seen it in the scientific community. That may be a true statement for some people but has absolutely no bearing on the scientific accuracy of the theory.

Peace

Tim

First, thanks to scriabin for coming up with a start for dissenting names within academia.

Now, on to business. The “unscientific defense” of Darwinism I am speaking of is the way anything that disagrees with Darwinism is branded as “bad science.” This despite the fact that Darwinism remains a hypothesis, a theory, that remains unproven because no one has ever observed it occurring. Sure, we can see local adaptation of species, but we’ve never seen (AFAIK) a species evolve into a different species. I find it unscientific to decry other theories as bad science when your own pet theory lacks a crucial piece of empirical evidence to back it up.

Now, Darwinism has the great majority of the scientific community behind it, so it definitely get a priveleged seat at the table. But that doesn’t mean all other theories should be excluded entirely, which is what Darwinism wants done in the nation’s classrooms. In my university physics course I was exposed to the basic idea of superstring theory, even though it’s still a fledgeling hypothesis whose researchers don’t even agree on just how many dimensions it should consist of. There wasn’t a substantial amount of class time devoted to it, but it was given mention as a theory that tries to accomodate some of the gaps in our understanding of the universe. I think all the most honest of ID proponents want is that same sort of consideration.

Most of what I know of ID and the controversy between it and Darwinism comes from the articles written for First Things by particle physicist Stephen M. Barr. I was going to look for some of his most recent argumentation to post, but those more recent articles are not yet available online.

 

[Orogeny]

scriabin:

Here’s evidence of dissenting scientists. 500 of them.

Sigh.

500 of them, huh? Wow. That’s a lot.

I’ll tell you what. I won’t link to Project Steve as a rebuttal to your list even though it was developed precisely for that reason. I will just ask you this: if the number of scientists on that list is significant dissent, what do you make of the other 99+% of scientists (especially biologists) that accept Darwin’s idea or some version thereof? Since you are impressed with numbers, doesn’t that blow your response out of the water?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

Good for your teachers and your son’s teachers. It was mentioned in my son’s biology class last year. Should we catalog all anecdotal evidence and try to outdo each other? Not very scientific, Orogeny.

Nor is making the blanket statement that I was responding to, is it rlg94086?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Andreas Hofer:

Now, on to business. The “unscientific defense” of Darwinism I am speaking of is the way anything that disagrees with Darwinism is branded as “bad science.”

Anything without evidence is not bad science, it isn’t science at all. I give you ID as a perfect example.

This despite the fact that Darwinism remains a hypothesis, a theory, that remains unproven because no one has ever observed it occurring.

So which is it, a hypothesis or a theory?

Sure, we can see local adaptation of species, but we’ve never seen (AFAIK) a species evolve into a different species.

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I find it unscientific to decry other theories as bad science when your own pet theory lacks a crucial piece of empirical evidence to back it up.

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

Now, Darwinism has the great majority of the scientific community behind it, so it definitely get a priveleged seat at the table.

Why do you think that is?

But that doesn’t mean all other theories should be excluded entirely, which is what Darwinism wants done in the nation’s classrooms.

Darwinism doesn’t want anything. People like me want only science taught in the science classrooms.

In my university physics course I was exposed to the basic idea of superstring theory, even though it’s still a fledgeling hypothesis whose researchers don’t even agree on just how many dimensions it should consist of. There wasn’t a substantial amount of class time devoted to it, but it was given mention as a theory that tries to accomodate some of the gaps in our understanding of the universe. I think all the most honest of ID proponents want is that same sort of consideration.

I would agree with you (and so would many physicists) that string theory isn’t science. I would oppose teaching that in a science class.

Peace

Tim

 

[scriabin]

I think 500 PhD’s from within the scientific community itself is evidence that these 500, a minority opinion, are not kooks or misfits.

Is abortion the killing of a child, the minority opinion of the Supreme Court, or the discarding of lifeless tissue, the majority opinion?

I’m impressed by numbers; but, in most matters, remain unconvinced by them.

Science is not a democracy.

but I do know enough to know that opponents of ID too often express a dogmatic and rather unscientific defense of Darwinism as a fact of nature.

Origeny asked for evidence of this dogmatic and unscientific defense. There’s no better place to look than his own posts:

Argument from authority–99% of scientists believe in it…it just HAS to be true.

Anecdotal evidence–His 2 sons haven’t heard atheism in the classroom…it just CAN’T be there.

Straw man argument–ID theory is just a creationism.

 

[rwoehmke]

Della:

ID does not claim that God created the universe. It claims that within nature one can see evidence that an intelligence was at work in the formation of the universe and all it contains, including us. That is not a religious proposition, but a truly unbiased observation made by many people in many places in the world long before atheistic materialism became the standard bearer of science.

I am of the opinion that ID without religion would be an agnostic position requiring an intelligence, but not being able to relate that to God. Perhaps like sex education ID should be left up to the parents. As a scientist I do not believe it has any place in a science class because science does not treat of ultimate causes an positing of things/beings outside the material world.

 

[rlg94086]

I would agree with you if the statement was a blanket statement. To say that something happens “all the time in the classroom” does not mean in every classroom.

If I say pedestrians get hit by cars “all the time in the US”, would you respond with:

"Never once, not once, in all my travels in the US have I been hit by a car. Not once. According to my two sons, they have never been hit by a car either.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this claim has any basis."

Orogeny:

Nor is making the blanket statement that I was responding to, is it rlg94086?

Peace

Tim

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orogeny:

Anything without evidence is not bad science, it isn’t science at all. I give you ID as a perfect example.So which is it, a hypothesis or a theory? talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
Why do you think that is?Darwinism doesn’t want anything. People like me want only science taught in the science classrooms.I would agree with you (and so would many physicists) that string theory isn’t science. I would oppose teaching that in a science class.

Peace

Tim

Thank you for examples of speciation. As the article notes, confidence in the existence of such data is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and I had as yet seen nothing to back it up.

While we agree that string theory is not science, I have no problem with it being mentioned in a science classroom as an idea some people are throwing around. I similarly would have no problem with a science teacher mentioning that some people posit an intelligent designer to explain the existence of the universe (not all ID even rejects the mechanism of evolution) any more than I would have a problem with the same teacher mentioning that some people posit the existence of a graviton to explain the effects of gravitation (this is another area of which I’m mostly ignorant, but AFAIK that’s nothing more than a wild guess at this point). None of the things listed above is science, but since the other strings and gravitons get passing mention I don’t see why we have to exclude ID.

(BTW, the articles I alluded to by Mr. Barr are not in favor of ID; he explicitly rejects it, and is just trying to give an fair hearing to the real claims of ID and expose some of the vaunted ‘scientific’ claims of those who press Darwinism beyond its proper bounds. I find no reason to disagree with him.)

 

[Orogeny]

scriabin:

I think 500 PhD’s from within the scientific community itself is evidence that these 500, a minority opinion, are not kooks or misfits.

They are not basing their beliefs on science. Did you happen to notice that the vast majority of those PhDs were not in biology or ba iology related field?

Is abortion the killing of a child, the minority opinion of the Supreme Court, or the discarding of lifeless tissue, the majority opinion?

Totally irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true.

I’m impressed by numbers; but, in most matters, remain unconvinced by them.

Is this one of those cases where you are not impressed by numbers? If so, why did you post your list?

Science is not a democracy.

Correct.

Origeny asked for evidence of this dogmatic and unscientific defense. There’s no better place to look than his own posts:

I didn’t expect that you could make your case. I don’t accept evolution as dogma. I accept it as science.

Argument from authority–99% of scientists believe in it…it just HAS to be true.

No different than 500 doubt it so it must be false, eh?

Anecdotal evidence–His 2 sons haven’t heard atheism in the classroom…it just CAN’T be there.

Certainly falsifies the argument that it happens all the time, doesn’t it.

Straw man argument–ID theory is just a creationism.

You, my friend, need to study the history of that “theory”. When you do, you will find that I have not created a straw man.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

I would agree with you if the statement was a blanket statement. To say that something happens “all the time in the classroom” does not mean in every classroom.

If I say pedestrians get hit by cars “all the time in the US”, would you respond with:

"Never once, not once, in all my travels in the US have I been hit by a car. Not once. According to my two sons, they have never been hit by a car either.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this claim has any basis."

OK, so back up Buffalo’s claim that it happens all the time. I won’t accept anecdotal evidence since you have ruled it out. I want a peer-reviewed study that shows that athiestic materialism is injected in the classroom all the time.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Andreas Hofer:

Thank you for examples of speciation. As the article notes, confidence in the existence of such data is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and I had as yet seen nothing to back it up.

That article is a very brief review of the evidence written for the layman. There is plenty of backup if you look at the author’s references (89 separate references by my count).

While we agree that string theory is not science, I have no problem with it being mentioned in a science classroom as an idea some people are throwing around. I similarly would have no problem with a science teacher mentioning that some people posit an intelligent designer to explain the existence of the universe (not all ID even rejects the mechanism of evolution) any more than I would have a problem with the same teacher mentioning that some people posit the existence of a graviton to explain the effects of gravitation (this is another area of which I’m mostly ignorant, but AFAIK that’s nothing more than a wild guess at this point). None of the things listed above is science, but since the other strings and gravitons get passing mention I don’t see why we have to exclude ID.

The problem with mentioning things like string theory in science class is that there is a limited amount of time to cover science, especially in a high school-level class. I would not, however, put ID on the same level as string theory because, as I understand it, string theory is based on mathematics but can’t, at least at this time, be tested or disproven. It is possible that that will change in the future. ID on the other hand relies on a supernatural designer. Science can’t deal with the supernatural, so ID will never be science.

By the way, for those who haven’t read some of my past postings, I believe in a designer (God). I do so based on faith. I don’t need science to find God for me. One thing to remember is that if God can be proven scientifically, His existence must be able to be disproven by the same method. I reject the idea that that is possible.

Peace

Tim

 

[scriabin]

Of the 500 dissenting PhD’s, orogeny enlightens:

They are not basing their beliefs on science

Is he clairvoyant, or merely presumptuous?

Did you happen to notice that the vast majority of those PhDs were not in biology or ba iology related field?

Why, yes, I did. Just think if all those Darwinist bioligists would just broaden their horizons with scientific opinion from other scientific disciplines from other PhD’s…

From scriabin:

Is abortion the killing of a child, the minority opinion of the Supreme Court, or the discarding of lifeless tissue, the majority opinion?

orogeny misses the point:

Totally irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true.

*Totally * relevant as to whether your believe in evolution should be based on a majority opinion of scientists, or any other body of experts. It shouldn’t.

From scriabin:

I’m impressed by numbers; but, in most matters, remain unconvinced by them.

origeny:

Is this one of those cases where you are not impressed by numbers? If so, why did you post your list?

The list is posted so that viewers can see the fact that there are a substantial number of scientists who are dissenters to Darwinism; not that this proves ID, it just proves there are dissenters from Darwinism from within the scientific community itself–per request by origeny.

If nuanced reasoning is being used, then why did origeny ask why was the list posted. It’s obvious…whoops, now *I’m * being presumptuous.

orogeny settles the matter for us:

I didn’t expect that you could make your case.

Oh, but I have—

to the list of unscientific reasoning including (not exclusively)

argument from authority,

anecdotal evidence,

and straw man reasoning,

please add: presumption (or clairvoyance, if you prefer).

 

[Wolseley]

Once again, I find myself agreeing with The Mighty Fred.

But I wonder what everyone else has to say regarding his treatment of the topic at hand…

lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

 

[rlg94086]

Since I didn’t make the claim or say it was correct, I don’t feel the need to back it up. All I know is that it does happen…at least it did in my son’s case. My anecdotal experience doesn’t prove Buffalo right, but it does demonstrate that your anecdotal evidence led you to a hasty conclusion. I was responding to you because you assumed that your ignorance of any occurance was proof enough that Buffalo’s claim had “no basis”.

BTW…why do you always make the claim that Intelligent Design requires a supernatural designer? Do you rule out more intelligent life from other galaxies? If we have advanced (if you want to call it that) to the point of being able to clone and grow tissue, who are you to say that an older, more knowledgable race hasn’t developed the ability to design a whole ecosystem? If there is mathematical evidence of intelligence, as another poster mentioned, it is possible someone billions and billions (in my best Carl Sagan voice) of miles away designed us.

Orogeny:

OK, so back up Buffalo’s claim that it happens all the time. I won’t accept anecdotal evidence since you have ruled it out. I want a peer-reviewed study that shows that athiestic materialism is injected in the classroom all the time.

Peace

Tim

 

[scriabin]

The Fred Reed link is excellent. Thanks, Wolseley.

Philip Johnson makes the same arguments in his book,“Darwin on Trial,” albeit in a non-irreverential (and decidedly less humorous) manner.

I once met a scientist who believed in evolution in a Bible study group at my parish. During the course of conversation I mentioned that I didn’t particularly believe in evolution.

She was aghast, treated the remark as a personal offense, and started pulling out the “I know better than you” airs like a madman hearing criticism of his favorite hobby.

 

[Orogeny]

scriabin:

Is he clairvoyant, or merely presumptuous?

How about observant. Why would someone with a PhD sign something outside his/her specialty, especially when the organization is a fundamentalist Christian group? Why wouldn’t they take their dissent to a scientific publication? Is it because it wouldn’t be accepted because they are skeptical but don’t have any actual evidence to back them up? Is it because they agree only based on their faith?

*Totally *relevant as to whether your believe in evolution should be based on a majority opinion of scientists, or any other body of experts. It shouldn’t.

I don’t believe that evolution should be based on a majority opinion. It should (and is) based on evidence.

orogeny settles the matter for us:
Oh, but I have—

to the list of unscientific reasoning including (not exclusively)

argument from authority,

anecdotal evidence,

and straw man reasoning,

please add: presumption (or clairvoyance, if you prefer).

I didn’t use any of those as I noted in a previous post. As for presumption, I presume only that you will not be able to present any scientific evidence against evolution or for ID. Call me presumtuous. Oh, yeah. You already have.

Peace

Tim