Equal Time For Creationism

Brian Berns writes "Many news sources reported on President Bush's recent semi-endorsement of 'intelligent design', the politically correct version of creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative Christians in the U.S.. While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck. Most of those same news sources, however, missed the recent condemnation of Darwinian evolution by the Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna. This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than just a hypothesis'."

Comments

Evolution is obsolete- upgrade w/ 'new biology'

[tenzig_112]

from: Bush Urges Schools to Dump Old Evolution Curriculum for 'New Biology'

CRAWFORD, TEXAS- For decades the United States has been lagging behind other countries when it comes to education, particularly in the sciences. Mainly this has been blamed on a lack of funding and national attention, but some pedagogical experts like President George W. Bush feel that other factors might be at work. For example, the President says that biology textbooks are horribly out of date, based on the 19th century writings of a man who wasn't even an American citizen.

If the US is to remain competitive in the world market, its young people are going to need an updated understanding of the world around them. To this end, the President today proposed a federal funding mechanism to encourage local schools to replace the antiquated notions of evolution and cosmology with the a origination theory making waves in Internet-based think tanks all over Middle America: Intelligent Design.

Re:Here we go again...

[timster]

Intelligent Design is an invention of creationists, and its intended purpose is to seem non-religious. Evaluated as science, it is based on two fallacies.

The first fallacy is its claim that evolution is a "random" process. Evolution is not random at all, as its progress is determined by natural selection (or the selection of God, if you prefer).

From that it moves to its second fallacy, the claim that living systems are too complex to arise from a random process. However, no mathematical evaluation of the level of complexity or the amount of intelligence required is ever made. As a matter of fact, the math was done decades ago, and it turns out that evolution works.

Intelligent Design does not belong in the classroom except as an example of poor scientific reasoning.

Re:Not all opinions are of equal value

[falzer]

The American Geophysical Union also weighs in on this recent news.

Quote:

"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."

Re:Film at 1100 A.D.

[Proaxiom]

Actually the Catholic Church has generally stayed away from confrontations with scientific theory ever since getting egg on its face around the Galileo fiasco and heliocentrism.

A nineteenth century pope (Leo the somethingth, I think) went so far as to lay out sensible boundaries for religion and science, essentially asserting that science has no business telling people what to believe about God, and the Church has no business entering into debates over empirical study.

Accordingly, the Church has never actually opposed most of Darwinism, and has tacitly accepted it, with the critical caveats that Catholics cannot believe in the process being 'random', as whatever happened has to be part of God's plan. (Also, Catholics have to believe that humans exclusively have souls.)

This position won't change any time soon, notwithstanding the odd vocal Archbishop.

Ahem - The Facts

[ndansmith]

Rather than fan the flames of the Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate, I would like to point out some facts (which Zonk and Brian Berns seem to have little concern for):

- This is the first time that Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design as President, though he held the same position as governor of Texas.

- President Bush does not think that curriculum decision concerning Intelligent Design should be made at the federal level; they should be left up to local school districts.

- A quote from President Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."

- Another quote: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

So here are some conclusions: First, the president is not making any sort of federal policy shift to cause Intelligent Design to be taught in schools. Second, despite that, the President knows that a high-level endorsement of Intelligent Design will be the difference-maker for some local school districts. Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children on the subject of the origin of species.

Philosophy is not science

[Darren Hiebert]

First of all, let me say that I am a physicist. This Slashdot article is an unfair description of what the OpEd piece is about. The piece does not condemn Darwinism. It does question Neo-Darwinism, which strays beyond the theories of Darwinism. The realm of science is to describe the behavior or processes (i.e. develop theories or models) of the mechanisms underlying physical reality and test them againt their predictions. When scientific theories (confirmed or not) go beyond describing behavior, into speculating on the purpose (or lack thereof) behind the processes, those theories are no longer science, but philosophy. It is inappropriate for science to assume that a correct description of a mechanism implies purpose or reason for that mechanism. Neo-Darwinism is Darwinism plus untestable (i.e. non-scientific) philosophical theories about purpose.

Re:What falsifiable predictions does it make?

[SatanicPuppy]

I can only assume you are a retard.

Physics, Biology, Mathematics, Chemistry...All these sciences were once branches of philosophy.

A good number of theologians have tried over the years to prove the existence of God using philosophical methods. They all failed. The very idea of a falsifiable claim is direct from philosophy.

Just because your idea of philosophy is something to talk about while you're smoking pot, doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

Re:Film at 1100 A.D.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis asserts that Evolution, as long as it is not used to uphold atheism, is not in conflict with the teachings of the church.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Re:Religion is mind rotting shit.

[Nugget]

I suppose you're basing this on the oft-repeated "God does not play dice" quote. Here are a few other Einstein quotes on religion, though, which are more pointed:

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Letter of 1946, Hoffman and Dukas]

"What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws." [The Private Albert Einstein]

"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously." [New York Times Magazine November 9, 1930]

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events." [Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium]

"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [Letter of 5 February 1921]

"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." [The World as I See It]

and finally

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being." [Einstein - The Human Side]

Re:Here we go again...

[jandrese]

Intelligent Design is both an argument from evidence and falsifiable in principle. Thus it is a scientific theory. But I think it is premature to teach it below the graduate level until a basic facility in philosophy of science has been taught. Controversies such as this generally result from ignorance, and do not lead to enlightenment. Public education, rather than deciding such a controversy, will preclude it.

Wrong on both counts. What evidence do you have that "a wizard did it"? That stuff about "life is too complex to happen naturally" doesn't work either, because you've never built up a mathematical model of complexity over time to prove that evolution alone cannot result in that sort of complexity.

Falsifiable? How? What experiment could you devise that would test this? I can guarentee that anything you try to do I can just say "well, the Wizard made it look like that".

The biggest problem with ID is that it doesn't follow the scientific method. The result for these unfortuante schoolkids is that they take the first 3 weeks of class to learn about the scientific method and how wonderful it is and how it's the foundation of all science, then you throw it away and say "well, except for the origin of species stuff, in that case A Wizard Did It(tm)". Do you not see how this is dangerous and foolhardy?

wow, way to spin

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the first time to endorse creationism. Disingenous rat.

The Washington Post, August 27, 1999:
        Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said, "He believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught.... He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught."

        The Kansas City Star, September 9, 1999:
        "I think it's an interesting part of knowledge (to have) a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view. Should the people choose in my state (to adopt a rule similar to Kansas') I have no problem" with public schools teaching both creationism and evolution.

        Reuters, November 4, 1999:
        Bush supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Bush stated, "I have absolutely no problem with children learning different forms of how the world was formed." Bush believes decisions regarding curriculum should be made by local school districts.

western governments NOT from Genesis

[peter303]

The idea of Democratic Republics came from Rome and Greece before they were Christianized. These ideas were revived during the 17th/18th century Enlightment, first incorporated in the US government, then France and so on.

Required read per Catholic teaching on evolution

[bluevector]

Pope John Paul II, and before him Pope Paul VI both made some interesting statements regarding the compatibility between the scientific theory of evolution and Catholic teaching as regards the origin of Man.

Pope Benedict XVI (current pope) has also made some indirect statements on the matter since his election too.

But to really undertand the beginnings of the modern Catholic "handling" of the issue, from the "top down" as it were, it is important for Catholics and non-Catholics/Christians alike to read Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis, promulgated on August 12, 1950.

It is really worth one's time to read the whole thing, but allow me to post the relevant quote that is still considered binding Catholic teaching on the matter:

36. For these reasons

the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to hi

Re:Here we go again...

[EllisDees]

> There is a huge difference here. With Muslims, the religous leaders are not standing up and preaching terrorism is bad.

Hmm. I must have imagined this news report for the other day where "The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) released a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism last week"

Re:Wrong on both counts?

[arevos]

I don't think so. At the level of specific constructs alleged to be examples of irreducible complexity, all a scientist has to do is demonstrate said construct arising outside of intentional design. Hence, ID is falsifiable in principle on a scientific level because its proponents suggest specific constructs found in nature that they hold to be examples of ID. In principle, this is no different than the falsifiability of evolution.

You're incorrect. The problem with ID is that the Intelligent Designer in question can potentially be omnipotent and omniscient. Indeed, most proponents of ID are Christians that believe that an all-powerful, all-seeing God created the Universe.

Now, a scientific theory must be falsifiable by observational evidence. With ID, because the Designer can be omnipotent and omniscient, any evidence can be faked, and therefore is no evidence at all. Indeed, with ID, the Universe could have been created a mere two seconds ago, and all of our memories mere fabrications.

Intelligent Design is, by definition, not scientific, because it places no limits on the capabilities of the Designer, and therefore cannot be proven false. Don't believe me? Then give me an example of evidence that would disprove ID.

Evolution, on the other hand, is falsifiable because, unlike ID, it is restricted by physical laws.

Re:Falsifying Intelligent Design

[jedidiah]

So, instead of wasting a lot of time trying to preach religion in the guise of science (intellegent design) we should just put disclaimers in front of all science textbooks.

To the Junk filter: ;-pp

Hey you! Yeah, you the fundie about to have a coniption fit. Science is a journey, not a destination. Nothing in this book is written in stone. I may well all be re-written tomorrow. It probably won't, but it CAN be.

So don't get your panties in a bunch just because a bunch of University professors have come up with ideas that happen to contradict some immutable truth you've been taught.

It's science. It could all change tomorrow.

If you want to find comfort in certainty and
appeals to authority, go to the religous
establishment of your choice. You will not
find it here.