ID KO'd in Pennsylvania

[rlg94086]

My son’s athiest biology basically said something just like that last year at the beginning of class. It wasn’t school policy; it was just his very intelligent way of explaining the differences and diffusing any concerns on the part of religious students. I was impressed! He didn’t speak ill of creationism or ID.

I don’t understand why ANYONE would have a problem with that!

Lurch104:

That is 100% FALSE. The policy was to read a small disclaimer before the first evolution lesson. The disclaimer stated roughly that evolution is not a proven fact, only theory. Also, that some believe in ID. If you want to know more about ID, books are available in the library.

Then the evolution section would be taught per the secular authorities. I really do not think most people commenting here have really followed this case.

More troubling are the belittling comments the judge made about ID supporters and religion in general.

I am absolutely shocked that supposed Catholics can be cheering this decision.

 

[rlg94086]

Have any of you actually studied the details of Intelligent Design? Having a flip discussion saying ID=creationism and religion has no place in school is not a very scientific approach.

I’m now moved to study it in detail. I’ll let you know what I find…but, you’ll have to wait a while

Here is a link to a summary of some of the articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals…
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science Excerpt:

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. PDF(2.95MB)HTML

Biology exhibits numerous invariants – aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis.

Sounds philosophical to me

 

[bgaCath]

One great mystery in this thread is why some self-claimed Catholics are so eager to accept the Sacred Scripture of Christianity is wrong.

 

[MikeWM]

bgaCath:

do you think phrenology and lobotomy should gain their place in science class? or communism ideology which communists always claim to be scientifically proved?

No, none of them are sciences. Have a look at some Philosophy of Science. I’d suggest starting with Karl Popper - he was particularly scathing of the claims of Marx to have ‘scientifically proven’ his theories.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

My son’s athiest biology basically said something just like that last year at the beginning of class. It wasn’t school policy; it was just his very intelligent way of explaining the differences and diffusing any concerns on the part of religious students. I was impressed! He didn’t speak ill of creationism or ID.

I don’t understand why ANYONE would have a problem with that!

Because it isn’t science Do you want the teacher saying exactly the same line before every single thing he/she is trying to teach in the class?

Now if you’re saying that we should have a class or two in Philosophy of Science, so that we know what science is and what it isn’t, and what a scientific theory is, then I’m all for it. This thread alone is proof that some people need to understand better what science is, and what it isn’t.

I personally believe something very close to the Cardinal Ratzinger quote above, but only the evolution part belongs in the science class.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

bgaCath:

One great mystery in this thread is why some self-claimed Catholics are so eager to accept the Sacred Scripture of Christianity is wrong.

Not wrong, but not necessarily complete literal truth. We’re not Protestants. And questioning the faith of people is against the rules.

Mike

 

[bgaCath]

I don’t doubt your faith. but I’m proud I believe God directly created men as the Bible of whatever language whatever version use the same words to discribe the creation of universe and the creation of man. I don’t doubt for a second God isn’t trying to deceit us.
same words, same behavior.
and I believe God made creatures 4 days after he created light. though I don’t know how long a day lasted then. but it’s an alteration between light and darkness.

Labeling me as Protestant-like is an attack on my faith. if you’re having trouble with me personally, contact mods. let’s not ruin this thread

 

[MikeWM]

bgaCath:

Labeling me as Protestant-like is an attack on my faith. if you’re having trouble with me personally, contact mods. let’s not ruin this thread

No problem at all, but Catholics don’t have sola scriptura. If you choose to believe that the creation was literally in seven days, then that’s fine, but believing otherwise is also perfectly acceptable.

I wasn’t attacking your faith, I was saying that as Catholics, we’re not required to believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible. It’s not ‘wrong’, but it can be allegorical.

Mike

 

[Digger71]

bgaCath:

most, if not all, evidence claimed by evolution theory can also be used to support ID. for example, all species resemble each other is a good evidence to prove all species are created by the only God.

No, the conflict between prey and hunter, parasite and host, plants and animals can all be used as evidence for multiple designers.

Now, suggest any experiment that could prove just one designer was involved, or multiple designers?

Evolution has been seen in the lab, but no ‘outside’ interferance has been seen (no bolts from the sky, no angels with a hammer and welding torch).

Designs get copied, similarity of design does not imply one designer (buy cheap version of Versace down the market).

Designs work in radically different ways as well (compare UNIX to Windows).

BDesigns have a mix-and-match of features. Features in animals and plants follow a lineage. ID implies true chimeras, mermaids for example.
and so on.

 

[bgaCath]

Digger71:

No, the conflict between prey and hunter, parasite and host, plants and animals can all be used as evidence for multiple designers.

and the genetic difference is? How about the genetic difference between human and apes and even plants?
Show me a creature that has little genetic similarity with others. a silicon based being instead carbon based for example

Digger71:

Now, suggest any experiment that could prove just one designer was involved, or multiple designers?

Evolution has been seen in the lab, but no ‘outside’ interferance has been seen (no bolts from the sky, no angels with a hammer and welding torch).

Designs get copied, similarity of design does not imply one designer (buy cheap version of Versace down the market).

Designs work in radically different ways as well (compare UNIX to Windows).

BDesigns have a mix-and-match of features. Features in animals and plants follow a lineage. ID implies true chimeras, mermaids for example.
and so on.

single designer or multi designer, That’s not the focus of this thread. if God will he can certainly create a mermaids but there’s no needs for that. through random mutation, it’s almost certain there’re other creature has the same advanced brain as humans yet bare no resemble of looking for example.

 

[Orogeny]

Lurch104:

That is 100% FALSE. The policy was to read a small disclaimer before the first evolution lesson. The disclaimer stated roughly that evolution is not a proven fact, only theory. Also, that some believe in ID. If you want to know more about ID, books are available in the library.

Did you read the transcripts of the trial? Did you read the decision? Why was the disclaimer to be read? If you don’t know, read the transcripts. It is VERY clear.

Then the evolution section would be taught per the secular authorities. I really do not think most people commenting here have really followed this case.

I can’t speak for anyone but me, but I have been following the trial by reading the actual transcripts. How 'bout you?

More troubling are the belittling comments the judge made about ID supporters and religion in general.

His comments were not about religion in general. His comments were specifically directed to the defendents in this case. Do you realize that there was enough evidence in this trial to charge at least two of the defendants with perjury because of their lies? It’s doubtful that any charges will follow, but they were caught in bald faced lies during the trial. That is exactly what the judge was refering to.

I am absolutely shocked that supposed Catholics can be cheering this decision.

Supposed catholics? A bit arrogant, hmmm?

Peace

Tim

 

[wanerious]

Lurch104:

OK, you have challenged my assertions. You have told me to take it up with the judge. I have posted the ENTIRE statement. If the judge read into the statement, that it his problem.

No — see, that’s the whole problem. The test for violating the Establishment Clause is to objectively imagine if a typical, reasonable person would “read into” the statment. It is of little consequence if every word in the statement is literally true. Do you believe every word advertisers tell you, simply because they might be literally true? Do you suppose that people might be able to manipulate others even while saying nothing that is patently false?

The judge did an exemplary job describing how, in detail, and in congruence with previous district and Supreme Court findings, the statement was obviously intended as an endorsement of a particular religious view. Please, again, read the ruling.

I again challenge you or anyone to point out anything false in the statement. I specifically does not call ID a theory. Judges are wrong all of the time. Many judges say that abortion is not murder, do you agree with that notion?

Sure, I think it’s possible that judges can make errors. Not in this case, however. Read the ruling. What do you disagree with?

You have been hoodwinked. These proponents of ID are engaged in a clever marketing strategy to make ID seem as palatable to non-specialists as possible. Instead of competing in the arena of scientific research, knowing they don’t have a chance, they instead choose to drum up popular opinion amongst those who don’t know any better. Is it not suspicious that no biologist or geneticist takes these claims seriously? That the only people advancing ID are those who are outside the field? That the firm representing the defense (from Michigan (?) — there’s some local people telling you what to do) had been encouraging school boards to do just what Dover did, telling them that they would represent them for free? That the school board would vote to change the curriculum despite the fact that all of them testified that they had no idea what ID was and they had no substantive knowledge of evolution either? Is this what you’re backing?

Furthermore, I have searched all of the website you have mentioned, while referencing the disclaimer, I have not found a full text of it. Links to the legal documents exist, but in the text of the news article it does not. Many are lead to believe that ID is being taught, it is or was not.

Of course ID wasn’t being taught yet. That’s why it was in court. Why do you keep saying this? The board passed a change in the school curriculum to teach creation science in the science classroom. Parents rightly sued the board to keep this from happening. We ought not mandate the teaching of bad science in the science classroom.

 

[Orogeny]

bgaCath:

I believe and worship God, because He created humans.
Atheists don’t worship God, because they believe they’re offspring of monkeys.

Could it be that athiests don’t believe in God because of something other than evolution?

Creation theory/ID are the foundation for theism.
Evolution theory is the foundation for atheism.

That is jibberish. No one believed in God before creation theory or ID?

Peace

Tim

 

[jman507]

bgaCath:

Be it secular or religious
everything that’s truth should be accepted.
everything that’s false should be rejected.

Science isn’t exactly trying to find the Truth. Maybe, but you’d have to go more into metaphysics. What should be in science is what seems to be indicated from the scientific method. If your teaching science at a basic level you really should be sticking to mainstream ideas and not going into beliefs. Anything in the textbook could be wrong, but this is right now to our best knowledge what is right using this methodology right now. Even if it is wrong, underthose guidelines I don’t think it is false, unless scientist on the whole are acting in bad faith, and knowingly know what they are presenting is wrong.

 

[rlg94086]

From what I’ve read so far, it is science. As the link I provided shows, they do scientific research and post their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

There are elements of the Theory of Evolution which also belong in the Philosophy of Science class, but they are freely shared in biology classrooms today.

MikeWM:

Because it isn’t science Do you want the teacher saying exactly the same line before every single thing he/she is trying to teach in the class?

Now if you’re saying that we should have a class or two in Philosophy of Science, so that we know what science is and what it isn’t, and what a scientific theory is, then I’m all for it. This thread alone is proof that some people need to understand better what science is, and what it isn’t.

I personally believe something very close to the Cardinal Ratzinger quote above, but only the evolution part belongs in the science class.

Mike

 

[wanerious]

rlg94086:

From what I’ve read so far, it is science. As the link I provided shows, they do scientific research and post their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Boy, I don’t know. A whole 3 articles? And one of them was “peer-reviewed” for a conference on design? And their “peer-reviewed” books bear closer scrutiny. Behe claimed his book was “peer-reviewed”, citing what turned out to be a 10-minute phone conversation about the general contents as a critical “review”. And a few articles “supportive” of ID? This just smacks of slick marketing and PR speak. Especially compared to the thousands of articles published monthly based upon evolutionary theory.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

Boy, I don’t know. A whole 3 articles? And one of them was “peer-reviewed” for a conference on design? And their “peer-reviewed” books bear closer scrutiny. Behe claimed his book was “peer-reviewed”, citing what turned out to be a 10-minute phone conversation about the general contents as a critical “review”. And a few articles “supportive” of ID? This just smacks of slick marketing and PR speak. Especially compared to the thousands of articles published monthly based upon evolutionary theory.

Let’s get real here about peer review. If thousands of evolution articles are published by peer review, it suggests that they all agree with the evolution boys club and other articles will never make the cut.

Peer review smells like peer pressure.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Let’s get real here about peer review. If thousands of evolution articles are published by peer review, it suggests that they all agree with the evolution boys club and other articles will never make the cut.

Peer review smells like peer pressure.

One possibility is to imagine the above. Another possibility that does not invoke a conspiracy amongst thousands of competitors that love to prove each other wrong is that evolutionary theory is actually pretty good science. Naturally scientists are people, so to expect a little resistance among some people is natural. But a conspiracy on this large of a scale makes me suspect that the science really is not that good.

 

[Thekla]

Lurch104:

I really don’t think ANYONE on this forum has read the disclaimer. At NO TIME was ID being taught in the classroom. Only a small notice to be read before EVOLUTION was taught. If the people on the other side won’t even allow others to hear that it is possible that evolution is wrong, or that other people believe in the possibility of something called ID (which is never described) how can a discussion take place? I believe BOTH evolution and ID. I am openminded enough to consider the merits of both.

Opening the door to people considering what began the process of evolution is a wonderful thing. So cheering the fact that the words “ID” cannot even be mentioned disgusts me.

Since science cannot prove when life begins, I guess those of you who support this decision also support the Roe decision?

Look. With ignorance running amuck in America, we have to fight it wherever we see it.

As for your believing in ID, I don’t even know what that means. Does it mean that you believe in God’s hand in the creation of the Universe or does it mean that you believe in the science of intelligent design. No Catholic will debate the first but the second isn’t even science.

Don’t assume that we don’t know how the School Board was trying to slip this in. I don’t want something called ID taught to my kids. I don’t want it pointed out to them in a science class when it isn’t science. And I don’t want astrology brought up in the astronomy class.

 

[Thekla]

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, *In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall)
*

First you need to show the source. 2nd if it’s genuine, it doesn’t necessarily right as it’s by “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Cardinal’s teachings aren’t protected by the Holy Ghost. 3rd if Human come from monkeys through random mutations, God will not told us he used dust of earth and breath of life. 4th literally and scientifically there’s only one reality, the same event can’t have 2 realities.

When I cited then Cardinal Ratzinger and the document it’s from, that’s called a source and you should know that. This is a Catholic forum, so if you think I’ve cited something falsely by your “if it’s genuine” comment you had better be able to back it up first.

I’m prepared to give you even more references because I think you need them. But you need to apologize for implying that I had falsely cited the Holy Father. And the next time you disbelieve what a Catholic is telling you about the Church, you would do us all a favor to educate yourself about the subject first.