http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/...ain657083.shtml

Comments?

From the link:
"Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education..."

I really get tired of that one.
Has anyone ever heard of cause and effect?
Is this really the detriment non-scientific evos think it is?

Have read some comments on the internet, but from my side of the Pacific the statements by Bush have gone un-reported.

IMO Bush is wrong. ID or creation are not science and thus belong in a separate area of discussion, e.g. philosophy or comparative religion classes.

[cynical] Politicians are politicians expect them to say anything that will gain them votes. [/cynical]

There were two responses by non-Christians, which isn't allowed in the 'Christian Coffee Shop' forum so they were deleted. Debatinator, if you later decide you want responses from non-believers, please post this same OP to the "Miscellaneous" section under origins (or let me know and I'll move it for you). Thanks,

(FYI, the two deleted posts were saved and can be recovered in case Debatinator decides he wants this moved to the "Miscellaneous" section).

Fred

Yes, I think it would be fair if we put it in the Misc section. Thank you, Fred.

OK, will do. Note that I also recovered the deleted posts (chance, Geezer), that appear above in the order they were posted.

Fred

But ID in itself doesn't point to any religion.

It depends on what you mean by "science". This is one of those claims that ends up being a waste of time. Virtually every creationist will tell you evolution is not science, and virtually every evolutionist will tell you creation is not science.

Fred

The Debatinator

The wording is carefully written to present that POV, but [cynic] I don’t believe that for an instant [/cynic]

The trouble with ID (amongst many) is that it’s a double edged sword favouring no one religion as you say, so if there is a push to include ID, and then draw logical conclusions from it, what will you conclude, what can you possibly conclude other than:

God,
Allah,
Aliens,
Etc,

It’s a very small list, yes?

And what then do you let every other competing idea also challenge evolution in the same way, YEC, OEC, numerous others, you can smell the litigation a mile away.

As I’ve mentioned before, science is not a democratic process, you can’t vote on the ‘theory’ you feel comfortable with. Let the scientists deal with the science, the educators to determine curriculum, if it’s wrong it won’t stay wrong for long, it will be corrected, that is how science works.



Fred Williams True, we’ll leave the specifics for topics in the Creation/evolution section, and concentrate on the politics. To which I would have to ask:

Is Bush qualified in the sciences to make such statements? (in what arena in the educational frame work does he propose to have ID broached, science or philosophy)
Is he pandering to a political lobby?

You could as easily flip that around and ask is Dawkins qualified to make his comments on religion?
Anyone can make a comment/opinion without being qualified.

Of course Bush is pandering to a lobby. All high-profile figures are...like, say...Dawkins.

Of courses they can have an opinion. But is it a form of abuse given the influence the president has?

And how about folks like Dawkins? He wants religion eradicated and spouts his views voluminously.
The Prez is not campaigning for ID - he offered an opinion.

Bush is trying to give balance. You act as if he is trying to silence evolution. Why do you pretend like you are standing up for free speech and free thought when all you are doing is silencing a thought?


"Why can't you change your ways and be a free thinker like me?"

- What I get from it.

People in public office have a duty to act on the behalf of all the people, showing no favouritism (directly or indirectly).

IMO ones personal views should be kept private while in office. This curtesy should extend to the media also who should refrain from asking personal opinion. I know, I know....…. I’m living in dreamland.

Man, you are living in dreamland!

"People in public office have a duty to act on the behalf of all the people, showing no favouritism (directly or indirectly)."

Really! I wonder why all they teach in public schools is evolution?... No I would say evolution is not a science whatsoever and is based on the assumption that things happen and not observations. Bush was right I think. Actually, teaching creation in a public school is perfectly legal, it's just that the American Communist Lawyers Union will threaten to sue, and will sue, even though they'll lose the case, but the threat to makes the school back down and fire the teacher. Such an unbiased and fair, free country we live in.

Free speech and free thought are undoubtedly fundamental pillars to our country, however (I am sure you have heard this before) science is not democratic. As of this moment the mainstream science community is in overwhelming support of the TOE being the most probable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. If we were to allow science to radically switch paradigms when a small fraction of its community offers little or no evidence of alternate explanations we wouldn’t have gotten very far. The fact that you agree with that small fraction does not make this attempt any more or less correct. All major scientific paradigm shifts of the past were the result of logical inferences made from available evidence. In our day and age the overwhelming majority of science professionals in relevant fields has drawn inferences from available evidence and has concluded that the TOE is most probable. Most of America’s populace is neither informed nor trained enough to offer any significant disagreements. In other words, it is very dangerous to allow a populace to “vote” on what they wish to be taught to their children as science.

It follows naturally that allowing alternate explanations to be taught alongside evolution gives the false impression that both explanations are on equal footing in the science community. This would be deceiving.

Now, it is apparent to me that the ID’s movement to install their arguments in a science classroom is an act of desperation. The only way to have a new scientific concept brought to a general science classroom is to provide evidence of this concept to the scientific community (not students in high school) that can hold its own and bring sway to the scientific establishment; thus far ID has failed to do so.

You are allowed to have that opinion; however the science community is who has to be convinced that you are right before ID can be put in a science class. Thus far the overwhelmingly largest majority of science professionals does not agree with you and absolutely does not consider ID and the TOE to be on equal footing. Until they do it is a disservice to the methodology of science to pretend that they are and allow both to be taught alongside one another in a science class. For now those in the ID movement will have to come up with enough hard evidence to convince scientists that the ID claims are substantial. If that evidence does exist the breakdown of the non-acceptance of ID as a valid scientific discipline will naturally follow upon its discovery; until then ID is just a wild goose chase.



Politics aside I don’t know how you can believe that. Actually I do; however your vision is very narrow. You see it as perfectly legal because you believe it all to be true…creation and what not. For a moment allow yourself to imagine its not. What if we do allow the teaching of creationism in school…and it’s not correct? Then we allowed it on the basis of religion. For if it’s not correct then the majority of science professionals were right all along and we allowed popular opinion to hold sway in a biology classroom. Worse, allowing an action so severe reign in a public school that a variety of believers and non-believers contribute tax money to would be “respecting an establishment of religion”. You might try and get around this by promoting the so-called secular ID movement but as Chance already pointed out: The identity of the implied designer in the ID movement is a very small list.

All of this aside, I do believe (as any good Libertarian should) that those who do not wish to send his/her child to a government run school should be accredited a voucher that allows for a private school whose teachings are philosophically inline with what they believe.

This is true with ID. It appears that very few people outside of ID understand what it is. That is obvious by reading the anti-ID literature. It is exactly for that reason, as well as our general curiosity, that ID needs to be taught in schools. It is also the only way to properly refute/ falsify a theory/ idea- discuss it publicly and see if it holds water.

But anyway I have written an essay as to why ID is scientific:

ID is scientific

"What if we do allow the teaching of creationism in school…and it’s not correct? Then we allowed it on the basis of religion. For if it’s not correct then the majority of science professionals were right all along and we allowed popular opinion to hold sway in a biology classroom. Worse, allowing an action so severe reign in a public school that a variety of believers and non-believers contribute tax money to would be “respecting an establishment of religion”

I could just change that first "creationism" to "evolution" and it would argue what you said just fine I think. Gasp, what if evolution that's being taught is wrong?... and it's all because of majority opinion, (in a certain group,) I could even take it as far as your religion point.
Gnight all.

crystaleaglesprings
There is a right way to effect change and a wrong way.

Right way - present evidence and argument to the experts, if accepted, change will filter down to the people and education system. Single system.

Wrong way – request equal time via political pressure, without consensus from the experts, change may still not be accepted by the experts, could eventually be proven wrong. Multiple systems.

These two arguments work equally for any system dependant upon knowledge.

I don’t know what religious affiliation you belong to, but suppose a Muslim argued successfully for equal time in your church? Is that any different a form of argument than creationist are using to insert creation science in the class room?

First- Creation and ID are NOT the same. Therefore any attempt to conflate the two just exposes the main reason why ID should be taught (education cures ignorance).

Second- What "experts" do we present the evidence to? Is the Nobel prize winner Max Planck an expert? After all it was his scientific research that led him to say the following:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

Now that’s a very interesting question, If ID’ist consider their proposals to be mainstream science, then there are plenty of organisations that will peer review any such articles, be it in the area of Geology, Cosmology, Biology, etc.

The alternative is to consider the ‘Science of ID’ a new branch of investigation that resembles science in some areas. In which case you cannot request ID to be included into regular science, you will need to create a whole new curriculum, (English, math, history, science, and ID).

Either way, after “the teach the controversy” has run it’s course, ID will be forced to stand on it merits, it must do research.



Cherry picking quotes does not lend support to ID, IMO it’s the equivalent to ‘name dropping’ in an attempt to gain credibility. If you could find out why Max stated what he did we could investigate why he thought the way he did, was it based on belief or was there some science behind the statement?
Max Planck’s could be right about thermodynamics (science), yet wrong on his quote (opinion - philosophy)? Lets stick to facts wherever possible, because personal philosophy is not science.


And remind me did Max Planck try to circumvent peer review and get his ideas taught in high school, or did he use the peer review process?

But who made the reviewers "experts"? Statistically speaking most of what is written in peer-reviewed journals gets overturned with future research (actually it is closer to 50%). So who are these "experts" whose ability to review someone else's science winds up being no better than a coin toss?

A simple reading of The Privileged Planet demonstrates that ID stands on scientific research.

BTW Max Planck said what he did based on his many years of scientific research.

And as for peer-review, I am still looking for an article that shows that RM&NS can allow a population of land animals to evolve into a population of cetaceans. Ya see THAT is being taught in schools without being supported in peer-review.

Can anyone say "double-standards"?

The would have had to demonstrated an understanding of the subject. Be familiar with the latest research in the field. Likely to have worked in the same area. Nothing untowardly about peer review. Or are you proposing that only people versed in ID can review ID? Which will put you in the dilemma of, “is ID science or a different investigation tool?


Sounds about right.


Please show how you arrive at that conclusion.

Disputed. This forum can test such claims (to the limits of a lay persons abilities)

Does that mean he cannot be mistaken/

sigh, been down this road before, you don’t want to accept what is generally seen a good evidence. However if you must, I suggest resurrecting a topic on whale evolution.

I thought i was interesting that the survey on the site only interviewed less than 0.01% of the population in America. And it did not mention whether or not those individuals were pre-screened before being surveyed. I also thought that one of the inferences of the "statistics" was very interesting.



This statement is very tricky. While at first it appears that the majority of Americans want creationism to have its place next to evolutionism in schools, it probably isn't so. My interpretation of this statistic is that the majority of Americans wish for creationism (a piece of the Bible) to be taught to others, along with evolutionism. The statistic is also subtley misleading by stating that 37% of Americans wish for evolutionism to be replaced, but it does not say by what. It could be replaced by creationism, ID, abiogenesis, or some other theory/belief system.

A simple reading of The Privileged Planet demonstrates that ID stands on scientific research.



By who? Please point out one person, scientist or not, who has read the book and disputes that it is based on scientific research. And it would be helpful if that person(s) substantiated their claim.



Start reading.

BTW Max Planck said what he did based on his many years of scientific research.



Unlike evolutionists, real scientists understand that they may be wrong. However they base their inference on the data as opposed to some worldview.

And as for peer-review, I am still looking for an article that shows that RM&NS can allow a population of land animals to evolve into a population of cetaceans. Ya see THAT is being taught in schools without being supported in peer-review.

Can anyone say "double-standards"?



There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that do that. So it doen't matter how many times we go down that road, it is still a dead-end.

You may start with me! I, dispute the claim that ID is scientific. Now do you wish to back up some point you consider a scientific proof of ID, or is it up to me to set them up as well as knock them down?




Ready when you are.

specifically what scientific research are you referring to? Can you make a connection within any of Max Planck’s articles, to the quote you posted? Bet you can’t. can you discount a religious conversion, an epiphany, laps of logic, ignorance of the subject, personal belief, etc, all these could have made him say what he said, yes? Can you prove otherwise?




Would that comment include a geologist that agrees with an ‘old earth’. Does that make him an ‘evolutionist’?



Would any on this list qualify?
Banta, Josh, 2001. Whale transitional fossil evidence. http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1997/whale.html
Boisserie, Jean-Renaud, Fabrice Lihoreau and Michel Brunet. 2005. The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 102(5): 1537-1541.
Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1983. Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: New evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan. Science 220: 403-406.
Gingerich, P. D., B. H. Smith, and E. L. Simons, 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of feet in whales. Science 249: 154-157.
Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1993. Partial skeletons of Indocetus ramani [Mammalia, Cetacea] from the Lower Middle Eocene Domanda Shale in the Sulaiman Range of Punjab [Pakistan]. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology of the University of Michigan 28: 393-416.
Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1994. New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming. Nature 368: 844-847.
Gingerich, P. D. et al. 2001. Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: Hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science 293: 2239-2242. See also: Rose, K. D. 2001. The ancestry of whales. Science 293: 2216-2217.
Thewissen, J. G. M. and S. T. Hussain, 1993. Origin of underwater hearing in whales. Nature 361: 444-445.
Thewissen, J. G. M., S. T. Hussain and M. Arif, 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-212. See also Berta, A., 1994. What is a whale? Science 263: 180-181.
Stricherz, Vince, 1998 (10 Oct.). Burke displays fossil of toothless whale. http://depts.washington.edu/uweek/archives.../_article2.html See also http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/scienc...leen980916.html

From talk origins list of external references

Can chance even follow a discussion? The evidence demonstrates he cannot:

On the scientific research that was the catalyst for The Privileged Planet




QUOTE
By who? Please point out one person, scientist or not, who has read the book and disputes that it is based on scientific research. And it would be helpful if that person(s) substantiated their claim.



Ya see what I mean? Has chance read the book? No. So why would I start with you?

BTW science is not about "proof".

But anyway the data that supports the design inference can be found in the book The Privileged Planet. I am not going to read it to you.

Transitional fossils of whales? Just how can anyone make that determination without genetic evidence? IOW "transitionals" are that only in one's mind.

Not one of those articles demonstrates that such a transformation is possible. IOW they are speculations based on the assumption. I bet you didn't even read one of them. The only one I haven't read is the second on your list.

So you are basically saying I am unworthy of debate because I have not read the specific book that you have read! What utter nonsense. The privileged planet should support your argument, not be the argument. Refer to the ideas in it as much as you like, these you will have to state in long hand or via link else you are playing a form of duelling banjos (or My link can beat up your link).

A forum is an exchange of ideas between whomever are members, you are not debating some published scientist, you are debating a lay person, if you feel that is beneath you, you should question your reason for participating. Documents stand on their merits, a forum stands on dialogue.




Thanks for small mercies, but you don’t have to, nor are you required, but you do have to state your position in your own words on any given topic, because your not allowed to respond to a criticism by referring to the The privileged planet as if that slam dunks the argument, that is just lazy.

Off topic. Actually most of this is, was it about Bush or something?

Ok guys, cool it. I realize things can become personal. But they only become personal when we decide to allow them to.

JP- you have been warned more than once. Need I say more?

You can debate points back and forth all you want. But when it starts to step into becomming personal, by making snide remarks towards each other. Is when I step in.

My next options are:
1) cooler
2) Close thread.
3) bann.

I hope I don't have to decide which one I should do.

You seem to think long years of scientific discoveries always lead to the right conclusions.

Not sure how or why you drew that conclusion, but to clarify my position on that.

Right conclusions – Science leads to more understanding. In the long game, it does reveal more truth about the natural world (self evident), this does not prevent the odd hiccup along the way, far from it, but by and large science is self correcting. I’m trying hard to think of a long running example, perhaps Newtonian physics (if one looked at it as the solution to all things in celestial mechanics), ok I’m drawing a blank here, any history buffs out there?

At a personal level – A wrong assumption or error in interpreting the evidence can lead a scientist completely off track. That may be a nothing of his doing it may just be the times he was in. Kepler’s discovery of the true nature of planetary orbits is a good case in point (a very good account can be found in “Cosmos, by Carl Sagan)

Edit: Since your user name is the same as your site www. address. And this is your first post. I can only determine that your main cause to come here is to advertise your site. This forum is for debate. It is not for spam.

Spam: To indiscriminately send unsolicited, unwanted, irrelevant, or inappropriate messages, especially commercial advertising.

Admin3