Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

I have just one final comment to make about the confusion surrounding this debate. Here was the judge's concluding statement from the Dover decision last December 20th, which is the case that started this topic:

"our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”

Now note an excerpt from the reaction from the Intelligent Design Network, which states that the judge "omits any discussion of the religious implications of evolution and the acknowledged naturalistic/materialistic philosophy which has protected it from scientific criticism". [You can read the full reaction at http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Pr...%20final%20.pdf]

That statement highlights the confusion of the terms evolution and evolutionism among the media and general public. As I noted in a previous post, evolution has a fairly narrow scope, and is obviously a fact, and not a theory or a religious belief. Evolutionism, on the other hand, seems to be an extrapolation of evolution back to the time zero of life on Earth. This may or may not be true, as we have no real way of showing it to be true. But as the judge makes clear, the ruling is about ID as an alternative to evolution, which is theory vs fact, respectively.

Evolution belongs in the science classroom, but evolutionism and intelligent design do not. Do teachers cross the line between evolution and evolutionism? Sure, I'll bet a lot do, either as part of a belief or simply because it's hard to tell the difference between the two. Another thing I'd point out is that yes, we all know that intelligent design has been hijacked by a merry posse of creationists and turned into a political platform to try and get their God-centric views into public schools. But at the same time I'll acknowledge that evolutionists have fed off the evolution confusion to further their stance. If you want to get upset about that, then I would agree with you. But for now, let's keep intelligent design out of our science textbooks.

--------------------

Cannis Rules: Balance of Power - My favourite Yuri's Revenge Mod

oh, mattie, please don't purport to define "evolution" and "evolutionism," the latter term being *never* used in the scientific context, tell us that your baseless and inane literary theories on what each mean are "fact," and that we among the "general public" are "confused" -- it's quite irritating to those of us who actually work in the fields of biological science and know quite well what "evolution" means among the scientific community.

as i noted in a previous post, "evolution" is *not* "natural selection." "evolution" as a term in the scientific community refers almost exclusively to darwinian interspecial evolution, except when given a specific context to note otherwise. "evolutionism" seems to be a word you made up, because before you bringing it up, i've never heard of it -- and by God, in my experience, i've been subjected to loads of in-your-face darwinian naturalism disguised as scientific fact called *EVOLUTION.* regardless of whether you "note" something or not, please leave the dissemination of proper scientific terminology to the scientists -- they, after all, know best what it is they call specific things. we all know that the word "evolution" can refer to many things, including intraspecial evolution of a bacterial strain, the evolution of human society, even the personal spiritual evolution of a human being..."evolution," in this case -- especially when i9t is said "evoluition v intelligent design" -- refers to darwnian evolution, or the eventual evolution of conscious life from single-celled simplicity.



that being said, i found an interesting tidbit tucked away in the dregs of cnn education today: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/ev...e.ap/index.html.

the abstract reads:

"FRESNO, California (AP) -- Under legal pressure, a rural school district agreed Tuesday to stop offering high school students an elective philosophy course on "intelligent design," an advocacy group said."

that's right, there was legal pressure (from, who else, our self-absorbed friends at AUSCS) for a school district to immediately cease and desist from offering an ELECTIVE course in PHILOSOPHY that covered intelligent design. the reasoning? "But Americans United argued the course relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones."

right. so when *purely scientific evidence* points to an uncomfortable conclusion (God maybe exists, God maybe created the universe and life), it's now illegal in the good ol US of A. how long will it be before belief in God is made illegal in this country?

it is quite clear in this case that the students who were enrolled in the course were more than happy to be so enrolled -- the course was an elective -- and that the school was not billing the course as a scientific course, nor even billing id as a scientific alternative to evolution. instead, the poijt of the course was to philosophically discuss id and to educate the students about the scientific evidence that is availible in the field for id -- basically, to teach the students about the current state of id as a theory.

it is *impossible* to teach id realistically without at least going into the supportive science, because id is a scientific theory (imagine that wtf)! and yet, when id has been shot out of the biology classroom by liberals who can't stand to see anyone believing in the Christian God these days, it cannot even turn to the philosophy classroom without being likewise assaulted there? if atheist professors are allowed to teach philosophy classes that treat the judeo-Christian tradition as a collection of untrue and impossible myths (which, coincidentally, is a violation of today's understanding of the seperation of church and state, as it holds in contempt any religions that adhere to the judeo-Christian tradition under any that do not), how, then, is it "unconstitutional" for a teacher from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum to teach a class on id???

Nice Goz. Maybe there was another reason they wanted you outta class.

Alright. Two things:

1) What the hell does all that nonsense have to do with ID being taught next to Evolution?

2) You've yet to address my core problem with ID, so whatever you say...you're wrong in my eyes and they're the only one's that matter. And if you're wondering, here's a hint...it's not the googlefight link. Good luck.

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote

1) What the hell does all that nonsense have to do with ID being taught next to Evolution?

1) how the do you DARE call me out for being off-topic when you post childish "googlefight" bullsthi and haven't contributed anything intellectual to the thread other than an obvious assertion taht you will never accept id no matter what the evidence presented? this is the "id in class with evolution." today's development, which considers "id in class," fits perfectly well in this thread. your googlefight does not, and neither does nonsense about "endorsements" and "batman" and "i'm the only real person" -- and yet hamedo is the *only one* to have been berated for "not contributing" (it's interesting to note which side of the debate hamedo falls upon). no way, man, this is to show that clearly the left's agenda has nothing to do with "science" and "evidence" as i have been saying all along and instead ALL about "God" and getting him out of school -- even out of electives that kids CHOOSE to be in.

2) you've obviously yet to read my very answers to your challenges! i have answered your non-scientific "core problem;" id does not need to ask "what made the universe?" as it already purports to answer that question. but LIKE I VERY MUCH ALREADY SAID, belief in God does not stifle scientific discovery and we will continue to ask how God made the universe or how God's physics work or how God designed biological systems. quite frankly i am completely exasperated with you at this point; there is absolutely NO distinction philisophically between answering "originally, how?" with "God" or with "darwin's." i've asked you before to point out the difference and to tell me how going with naturalistic evolution is in any way more scientific than going with the God hypothesis and predictably you have IGNORED me and responded with childish bellicosity. neither method is a QUESTION; both methods are ANSWERS. they are philosophically IDENTICAL in that they simply seek to ANSWER the question of "where did we come from." DARWIN does not ask any questions, he gives us an answer. ID does not ask questions, but give us an answer. in either scenario, every other branch of science is intact and can remain free (and is encouranged) to ask all the questions it pleases.

not a SINGLE TIME in this thread has anyone responded to a single piece of scientific evidence i have presented or anything i have said outside of a few select individuals who i thank dearly for their attempts at civilised intellectual discourse; the rest of you are making a clear mockery of this thread and i'm sure the mods are chuckling right along with you. have the decency to respect those of us who are actually interested in the topic at hand. i'm tired of seeing "well, the hell with your scientific evidence man, but you're still wrong LOL!@!!!!!!2134!@ GOD SUCKS GOZ SUCKS WWWW" if you have nothing to contribute and if you choose to IGNORE my posts and IGNORE my reponses to your challenges then i invite you to RECUSE yourself from this thread. you are defying reason.

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 18th January 2006 03:05

I'll do one better and ensure that both sides cease hysterics, insults, and, well, just the topic.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?