Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Equal Time For Creationism

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-say-something-nice dept.

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'."

13 of 3,451 comments (clear)

  1. Here we go again... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Oh, dear God...the Intelligent Design debate rears its ugly head once again. I predict a thousand comments on this story...easy.

    OK...let's get the ball rolling, shall we?

    Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.

    (Note: during these debates, the issue of my own faith is always raised, so let me address that now. I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ died so that we may be saved.)

    HOWEVER , I do not believe that such matters of faith should be taught in schools. I know that my faith is inherently unprovable...that's pretty much the definition of 'faith'. Matters of unproven, unprovable faith belong in your chosen place of worship. Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Here we go again... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to say that the world would be a better place if more Christians were like you.

      --

      Technoli
    2. Re:Here we go again... by geekpolitico · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My main objection to addressing Intelligent Design in a philosophy class is that it would be a waste of time. Why not discuss Hume, Locke, Kant, Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle. If you like recent philosophers then discuss Hare, Quine, Foucault, or Foote.

      There is little of philosophical value in Intelligent Design. It may be of theological interest, and while the line between philosophy and theology can be indistinct .. Intelligent design is a manufactured theory that is far past the dividing line.

      Actually, I think we've hit on the right class to teach Intelligent Design. A marketing class. Look kids, how do you find a way to rebrand an old idea to provide it with added legitimacy in the modern age?

    3. Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's not just the very vocal minority, but the media that chooses to run only sensationalist stories about the minority, and never provide any scale to reality.

    4. Re:Here we go again... by spisska · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist. A belief that you do not share does not automatically put someone into a fringe extremist group which is to be feared or summarily dismissed.

      Believing in creationism is not extremist. You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care, but that is not extremist either.

      What is extremist is insisting that a religious doctrine with no basis in scientific method (i.e., not based on direct observation, not testable, not predictive, and neither provable nor disprovable) should be held as valid science.

      I am not opposed to the teaching of religion in schools -- without a knowledge of the Bible, it is diffucult to have a real understanding of the artistic, cultural and political histotry of Western civilization, let alone how and why it is different from other civilizations in history.

      Our western-style democratic systems of government, after all, stem directly from the Book of Genesis -- that humans are created in the image of God, meaning endowed with metaphysical freedom. Without that notion of metaphysical freedom, there would be no freedom in the real world.

      But that is philosophy, not engineering. The Bible is literature, not history. Religion is cutural, not factual. And whatever the euphamism of the day, creationism is doctrine, not science.

      If it were up to me, comparative religion would be a required part of every secondary school curriculum, but certainly not part of the science curriculum.

      If we teach creationism in biology lessons, does that mean that we should also teach in astronomy the Islamic doctrine that the phases of the moon cannot be predicted, but must be observed? Perhaps in physics we should also teach the perfectly valid theory that an object will fall to the ground because that is the nature of matter.

    5. Re:Here we go again... by dubl-u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not just the media choosing to run only sensationalist stories, but media consumers, who mainly buy crap and leave thoughtful articles unread.

      And it's not just the media consumers, but the brains of media consumers, which were hardwired by evolution to prefer gossip, political posturing, and photos of pretty girls and cute babies eating ice cream over thoughtful, rational discourse.

      So nobody believes in evolution because of evolution. Which to my mind pretty much proves that there's no intelligent designer involved in this process.

  2. Not all opinions are of equal value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists: "Not all opinions are of equal value, and we need to teach science - not religion -- in our science classes. We wouldn't teach astrology in astronomy courses, or give flat-earth teachings 'equal time' in the geography class."

  3. Re:I moderate this story -1 Flamebait by Knome_fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? The US president endorsing something like intelligent design isn't even newsworthy in your opinion?
    That's scary.

    Rest assured, for someone from Europe like me this whole debate looks really surreal and scary, but it's definately newsworthy.

  4. Oh Joy... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let the rehashed arguments begin. Let me summarize 90% of the forthcoming posts...

    25%: Creationists are stupid idiots who are basically Luddite Talibans without the beards.

    40%: Creationists are wrong for x y z reasons.

    10%: Defending particular versions of creationism that are basically compatible with the non-metaphysical aspects of evolution.

    15%: We went to Iraq for the oil. And people in Kansas are stupid.

    So how about we just skip the posting on this article, and move on to the next? The repetitious was the Slashdot community deals with posts regarding evolution is boring.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. What falsifiable predictions does it make? by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In order for it to be scientific, it must make falsifiable predictions. Please state what predictions ID makes so that we can design actual experiments to try to disprove it. That is how science works. If it doesn't make falsifiable predictions, it isn't science.

    Well, perhaps it could be included in a philosophy clasroom as an example of modern day sophistry:

    The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant; it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  7. Compare/contrast ID & Nietzsche by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm European, so excuse my ignorance, but I really don't see why it should, from what I can tell it doesn't have any philosophical bearing. Or what is the philosophy that should be discussed in class?
    Exactly. ID has nothing in common with any other philosophy UNTIL you add the religious aspect.

    ID is not science.
    ID is not philosophy.
    ID is an attempt by a religious organization to counter the scientific method's encroachment on their domain.

    With every scientific advance, their concept of "God" becomes less effective and more nebulous and this scares them.
  8. Re:Ahem - The Facts by kmcrober · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    That's a little misleading. Bush is advocating teaching ID, he's only justifying it by saying that the purpose is to expose students to multiple theories. The problem is that, depending on your standards, there is either one valid theory--evolution, which is valid because it is supported by evidence and science--or many, many valid theories, such as Scientology, which would be valid because someone believes in it and would be offended to be taught facts that contradicted their beliefs.

    It's very deceptive for someone in Bush's position to say, "Teach the controversy!" There is no controversy. None. ID has nothing to do with legitimate science, and whatever controversy exists is the result of an intentional effort to deceive laypeople.