Murphy's Law:
"Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference."

Supposing the hidden agenda of Reps is neither to teach Creationism/Intelligent Design nor teach religion in public schools, but rather to make liberals look like fools for arguing against it.

I'm now convinced that Creationism/ID sounds good, but will not be anything close to scientific for the next couple of centuries. This is exactly why we should let them look like fools trying to prove it now. Even if they were allow to teach it, how much could they say about it without obviously straying from the scientific method or obviously teaching religious dogma?

After going round and round on this forum with scientific types and seeing the press reaction to this issue, I'm also convinced that the only way to prove to the average citizen that it is not science, is to let someone try to conduct a Creationism/ID scientific experiment.

Eventually, anyone who tries to conduct a Creationism/ID experiment ends up looking like a fool. However, anyone who tries to block the experiment or deny the theory scientific consideration, will look equally, if not more foolish for not maintaining an open mind in the eyes the general public.

Your Thoughts?

Well, you know my thoughts....and they come from more than simply a scientic perspective.
But Bill, I highly doubt whether a couple of centuries will improve creationism's/id's chances of becoming a scientific venue per se.

It just baffles me that people who consider themselves religious can't just understand evolution as a possible plan that their creator may have had. That would certainly make it acceptible for them to accept both when considering the natural and supernatural aspects of human experience. :tree:

The supernatural aspects of human experience are the problem. They are way too subjective.

The Washington Times
Nation/Politics

KANSAS UNIVERSITY TO TEACH INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS MYTH
November 23, 2005

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

The university's Religious Studies Department is offering a course next semester titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies."

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, chairman of the department.

"Creationism is mythology," Mr. Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

Earlier this month, the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.

Although local school boards still decide how science is taught in the classrooms, the vote was seen as a major victory for proponents of intelligent design, which says that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation as the handiwork of God -- camouflaged in scientific language as a way to get around court rulings that creationism injects religion into public schools.

John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, said Mr. Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.

"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes [intelligent design] to be simply a religious nut," Mr. Calvert said. "That's the reason for this little charade."

Mr. Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers.

University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said he didn't know all the details about the course.

"If it's a course that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.

This totally baffles me, as well. It seems so obvious and so simple.

So, that makes me wonder if Bill has a point that it is just a ruse to make the Dem party look more secular.

too true..... each person in this sea of billions can have a different explanation of the supernatural based on their own particular experential and educational input.....truly a tower of babel!

but hey let's not get Bill going on the subjective

don't know either Pie, it's easy to suspect this administration and by extension their party of various ulterior motives and dastardly deeds...I guess that happens when people catch you in one too many lies...but we don't have to worry about being too secular...it's what protects the rights of each citizen in this country ...rather, I think they should worry about a backlash that could hurt their own movement and that is their corporatist fascism and a very narrow and limited belief system that they want to foist on the American people as a whole.

I used to automatically reject "intelligent design" because it was put forth by religions - but the more I've thought about it objectively, the more I've realized that even I believe in a form of intelligent design. In essentially the way DWB mentioned - evolution being a tool used by God/Us.

Do I want it taught in school? No, not particularly - I prefer to teach matters of faith to my children myself. I know damn well the religious right isn't going to allow the school to teach children my version of intelligent design, and I don't want them teaching anyone else's either.

Right Sapp,
I think that's one of the reasons people object to the heavy-handedness of trying to force this issue.....as we saw in the Shiavo case when it comes to matters that are intimate to a person's belief system or family life they resent intrusion...

What is the problem with them including it in a Sunday school class or whatever venue suits their fancy as long as is not included in a science course... if it is really intelligent design that they want to promote? I have a feeling it is more than just that...and that is perhaps why they are so relentless in this...there seems to be a conflation on the part of Fundamentalists with God and country.

If God created all, that would be a miracle and thus cannot be proven or disproven by scientific method. If it could be, then it wouldn't be a miracle or divine.

The Republicans seem to know this and some Democrats too that if an issue can be broken down to a choice between Jesus and whatever, many people are going to vote for Jesus despite any and all evidence and facts.

Thanks Pie

Sorry folks. I didn't mean for this thread to become another stalemate debate about the validity of Creationism/ID vs Evolution. As in the title of the thread, I conceded that Creationism/ID is not science.

I wanted to explore the possibility that the whole debate is just a ruse to make the Democratic party look more secular, as Pie put it. What if that is the case?

Is it possible that allowing them the futile attempt to teach Creationism/ID as science could work in favor of those against it, by making those for it look foolish?

To have a secular goverment means to conduct all goverment affairs without the introduction of religion. The same is true of a secular education or a secular
political party.Why would it a bad think to make the democratic party appear more secular? Isn't that what we wish for the political parties in the middle east?

It depends how you define "religion". Science as it is actually practiced today --call it Scientism-- has a decidedly religious, non-scientific cast and a dogmatic adherence to an ideology that serves particular socio-economic interests.

As far as I am concerned, evolution is proven fact-- but the orthodox Scientific theory --neoDarwinism-- purporting to explain the facts of evolution is just as unsatisfactory from a genuinely scientific viewpoint as the theories of "intelligent design" or myths of "Creationism".

Science as I understand the concept, is the name of a process which is as much
a part of evolution as any other object or process that could be named. The scientific interprize, as studied by the philosophy of science, does not much look like the popular conception of science.

I'm guessing at least half of the Democratic base and swing voters have strong religious memes. I'm sure over half of them are from red states that we need to win.

You know how I feel about this. Freedom of Religion is a realistic goal. Freedom from Religion is not.

Liberals have more to lose besides looking secular. I don't know what the latest poll shows, but if it's still 65% of America that thinks there is something scientific to be found in Creationism/ID, the other 45% could be alienated as not having an open mind.

But again, I don't want to get into who actually does have the more open mind. I Concede, Creationism/ID is not science. However, if the general perception is that it is science or yet to be proven as not, shouldn't we let the fools who came up with the theory look foolish by themselves for trying to prove it?

However, if the fools just create more fools in their attempt to teach a faux science, then......

Can't prove or disprove Creationism because by it's very nature it's super-natural.

Exactly why I believe they would end up looking like fools after awhile.

Seriously, how far could they get before the majority of the population started demanding real scientific results?

Sooner or later people would realize that nothing naturally measureable that points towards intelligent intervention. The worst thing that could happen is another meaningless social science would emerge, no worse that "political science."

There was a CBS poll discussed here at CGCS sometime ago where it was said that something over 50% of those who voted for Kerry thought that Creationism ought to be taught along with Evolution in our public schools.

I don't see how the two theories compete. One is a theory of a begining. The other is a theory of a continuation.

What's changed with me is that I don't see how any theory of how it all began can be proven or disproven. That's why I think anyone who tries to prove it will look foolish after a while.

From what I understand, most people think that Creationism/ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. The "Big Bang" theory might be a different story, but even that theory doesn't seem to have an absolute begining.

I personally believe that software can exist without hardware, but doubt that anyone will be able to prove it for at least a couple of centuries. Software without hardware is what you call the supernatural. This is why I concede that it is not science and believe that anyone who tries to prove or disprove it ends up looking foolish. I say we shouldn't fight them. Let them dig their own graves.

While I think Creationism/ID ought to be taught just in the religious or Sunday Schools, I don't know if it's worth fighting over. My guess is that there will only be pockets across the nation that will include such teachings in their local public school system.

My kids are grown now but I know I would not want a public school teacher sharing "supernatural" ideas based solely on religous beliefs to my kids or any kid.

Is it on the standardized test? NO. We have enough on our hands just getting the kids to pass the tests for "No Child Left Behind" as it is. So it is worth fighting for.

marie :cold:

Unfortunately, I do not think that enough parents have a clue as to the detail of what their children are being taught. Therefore, if ID is allowed to be "taught" in the public schools,
I do not see any hope of parents rising up to object- even if it cannot not be proven.

Undoubtedly, an attempt would be made to introduce this in the younger grade levels, as well-
where the children are not intellectually sophisticated enough to do anything but swallow it whole.

On the other hand, if the Dems & Indies fight it, they will be labeled as secular. And, imho, being labeled as secular is a huge political negative. With such a label, I do not feel a coalition of Dems, Indies, Greens can win back the oval office. This was a large part of the problem in '04 - the perception that the Dem Party was secular, Godless, heathen ...

So, that puts me back to square one. I do not want ID taught in the schools; but I do not want to lose another election to the party supported by the RR. So which is worse ? Probably the latter.

Sometimes one makes a pact with the devil in order to gain and retain power. For years the Democrats outside the South said and did little about the segregation there and as long as that was done, the South remained loyal to the Democrat Party even going so far as voting for a liberal like Adili Stevenson instead of Republican Ike.

This may be a question everyone here needs to answer for themselves. Does one fight this one battle for principle and risk losing the war?

Bill,
To be honest, I've never understood why people have trouble with the concept of evolution and/or intelligent design. I believe both. I don't believe in a benevolent or malevolent or judgmental or accepting "maker" behind intelligent design. I think it is probably just a result of the laws of physics - laws we are just barely beginning to understand.

I don't understand how anybody who has ever taken one of the new broad spectrum antibiotics or an influenza vaccine can claim that evolution does not exist. And I don't understand how anybody could look deeply into the abyss of physics or study biology or botany and not come away with an appreciation of some kind of "intelligent design."

Maybe what I believe in is not 'intelligent' design but just design. I guess the whole intelligence part is still one great big grand mystery.

I doubt anything on the subject is testable. First they would need consensus as to what is fact for it to become a standard. Before anyone agrees on what is fact, the would have to overcome huge hurdles regarding separation of church from state and freedom of religion. We should call there bluff.

I'm thinking this is like the constitutional ban on gay marriage. They know that they can't get it passed, but they only use it for voter turnout on other issues. I think they are using this issue not for getting religion in the classroom, but instead to make liberals look anti-religious by fighting it. I also think they are trying to make liberals look less-open minded by calling it science so we appear to be fighting progress, even though no such potential for progress exists.

And just imagine all the Baptists and Methodists and Catholics and Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and Jews and Muslims, and Hindus, etc. trying to get together to come to a consensus on what religious beliefs are facts and what are not facts.



You make a lot of sense here, Bill.

Beig for education and liberation from prejudice and arbitrary authority,
I'm not interested in geting into fights with potential democratic voters
about any particular religious dogma, but I am in favor of vigorously
promoting education and enlightenment which includes resisting any
literal interpretation of any kind of scripture as providing truth
statements aouut the universe including mankind's existence in the universe.