God Squad:00 - Evolution:01

[cheerful_deviant]

This just in, Dover, Pa. school board votes to rescind its “intelligent design” policy.

More details to follow as they become available.

 

[Despina]

Two thumbs up!

 

[Pure]

But wasn't the old board thrown out? This is the new folks tidying up, iirc. Even the idiot Santorum now says it was a bad idea, this fight.

 

[Despina]

But wasn't the old board thrown out? This is the new folks tidying up, iirc. Even the idiot Santorum now says it was a bad idea, this fight.

The fight is always a bad idea when you get your butt kicked. Hindsight and all that.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Update:

Intelligent-design policy rescinded
School board closes the book on legal controversy in Pennsylvania

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:30 p.m. ET Jan. 3, 2006


DOVER, Pa. - The Dover school board on Tuesday rescinded its policy of presenting “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution in high-school biology classes, two weeks after a federal judge found the concept was religious and not scientific.

There was no discussion by members of the Dover Area School Board before the voice vote Tuesday night.

The board’s newly elected majority, which had pledged to remove intelligent design from science classes, has said it will not appeal the judge’s decision to overturn the policy.

The policy, approved in October 2004, required that students be read a statement about “intelligent design” before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps,” and it referred students to an intelligent-design book.

On Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sided with eight families who argued that “intelligent design,” which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause, is biblical creationism in disguise.

At the time that the policy was approved, the school board said it was trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives. But the judge said the board’s real purpose was “to promote religion in the public school classroom,” and said intelligent design could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes.

Most of the school board incumbents who had defended the policy were ousted in the November election, replaced by candidates who pledged to eliminate it.

The policy and federal lawsuit added fuel to a national debate over “intelligent design.”

In Kansas, education officials recently cleared the way for schools to teach “intelligent design.”

In Georgia, the state schools superintendent drew protests in 2004 for proposing a science curriculum that replaced the word “evolution” with “changes over time.” Last year, a federal judge ordered Cobb County, Ga., schools to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.

 

[R. Richard]

Good news. However, I question the use of the word "rescind" in an area where people are dumb enough to consider "intelligent design."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

But wasn't the old board thrown out? This is the new folks tidying up, iirc. Even the idiot Santorum now says it was a bad idea, this fight.

Om;y because the judge so throughly came down on the side of science. His ruling is so difinitive it will leave ID adherents with practically zero wiggle room to keep pushing it, at least in PA.

 

[English Lady]

I think God was taught to have created the world in our Religious Education classes at school, and the evolution thing was done in science.

At the end of the day I suspect thats the way it should be, though I reckon if you're likely to believe in God, you'll believe he created the universe any damn way He so desired *grins*

 

[rgraham666]

I've always though of God, when it comes to creation of the universe, as a great pool player.

You know the one. The one who can sink every ball from the break.

So I figure God just gathered all the matter and energy in the universe in one big lump, touched it in just the right spot, then stood back and watched it unfold.

To all intent and purposes, creation is still going on. Through the physical means that God created. Which includes evolution.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

This just in, Dover, Pa. school board votes to rescind its “intelligent design” policy.

More details to follow as they become available.

 

[English Lady]

I've always though of God, when it comes to creation of the universe, as a great pool player.

You know the one. The one who can sink every ball from the break.

So I figure God just gathered all the matter and energy in the universe in one big lump, touched it in just the right spot, then stood back and watched it unfold.

To all intent and purposes, creation is still going on. Through the physical means that God created. Which includes evolution.

Well put!

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks EL.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My own opinion, has always been that belief in God and science are not incompatible or even adversarial. religion and science do not examine the same questions very often.

Abortion, for example. Science can tell us what happens to create life, it can give us the stages in development, and it can more and more, save the life of a devloping child from medical emergency. But science cannot tell you when that life is a person. It dosen't examine the concept of a soul. Religion does.

The two disciplines are cast as enemies so often, because adherents of one or the other, often wil not budge on where the line is drawn.

Evolution, is a working theory. It tries to answer a specific question, to whit, how did we end up with such a diversity of species. To me it's as simple as religion saying God creating all the animals. Evolution simply tries to understand the mechanism God used to do so. They don't have to be absolutes. In that respect, some scientists are just as dogmatic as some religionists. But no matter what they say, neither has to be wrong in order for the other to be right.

 

[English Lady]

My own opinion, has always been that belief in God and science are not incompatible or even adversarial. religion and science do not examine the same questions very often.

Abortion, for example. Science can tell us what happens to create life, it can give us the stages in development, and it can more and more, save the life of a devloping child from medical emergency. But science cannot tell you when that life is a person. It dosen't examine the concept of a soul. Religion does.

The two disciplines are cast as enemies so often, because adherents of one or the other, often wil not budge on where the line is drawn.

Evolution, is a working theory. It tries to answer a specific question, to whit, how did we end up with such a diversity of species. To me it's as simple as religion saying God creating all the animals. Evolution simply tries to understand the mechanism God used to do so. They don't have to be absolutes. In that respect, some scientists are just as dogmatic as some religionists. But no matter what they say, neither has to be wrong in order for the other to be right.

Exactly, that is just what I believe. Thanks for expressing it so well

 

[Liar]

I repeat what I always say about this:

If someone need to battle science because he thinks it threathens his religion, it says two things about him.

First of all that he is ignorant of what science is.

Second of all that he is weak in his own faith.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think the big problem comes from a misunderstanding of science. Here they have an interesting philosophy, which is both interesting, will likely lead to a peaceful coexistance of religious dogma and science (much as the sun revolving around the earth was eventually incorporated in sermons), and which would be no problem taught in humanities classes across the United States.

This philosophy is not science, does not follows science's rules, and cannot be included in a science class without perverting or destroying what science fundamentally is and means. It was stupid to try and push it there. The judge had no rational choice but to give his decision. Any judge who does differentally shows an immense ignorance to basic science.

This is sad because this battle and any sane judgments rendered on it will hurt intelligent design's mystique and its value as a piece of philosophy (I won't bother to mention the extensive damage to both culture and science an insane judgment would have had and may still have). It keeps the two force antagonistic over this issue because instead of adapting the philosophy into theology, they tried to force science to kowtow to not-science and science doesn't do that because it has no room for flexibility. Flexibility has disastrous consequences. And some other philosophy or this one refurbished will have to return in another X years to try again.

And all because some greedy ignorant people don't understand that science isn't the quest for "truth", but a quest for the extention of science. Even if it is "true" it can't be taught in science unless it has been scientifically shown to be reliably true enough to form a theory.

But people tried to force their "truth" and paid for it and hopefully will continue to pay for it. Science can't afford anything less.

 

[R. Richard]

Evolution, is a working theory. It tries to answer a specific question, to whit, how did we end up with such a diversity of species. To me it's as simple as religion saying God creating all the animals. Evolution simply tries to understand the mechanism God used to do so. They don't have to be absolutes. In that respect, some scientists are just as dogmatic as some religionists. But no matter what they say, neither has to be wrong in order for the other to be right.

Colly:
Scientists HAVE to be dogmatic. Their dogma is developed from tested assumptions. Once the assumptions have been verified, then the resulting assumption is a theory and is dogma UNTIL proven wrong. [Actually, a theory may remain dogma evan after parts of it are proven false. The Newtonian field theory is still dogma for most real-world applications above the subatomic level.]

HOWEVER, the problem that comes when you try to mix religion and science is the details. If you postulate that Christian God created all the animals, then the bible tells you that it all happened at once. Science does not agree. The animals came into being at different times. One of the key pieces of evidence is that there are many isolated Pacific islands that have flightless bird species that exist nowhere else. Since the birds are flightless and can't swim, they could not have gotten to the islands unless they flew in and evolved. [The reason that they evolved is that a bird has enormous chest muscles that power the wings. Normally, the better the chest muscles, the better the bird. However, there is really no place to fly to on an island that may be five by 10 miles in size. Thus, the bird loses the expensive wing/chest muscle combination that enable it to fly. Flying is too expensive if it does not produce a return.] If it were just one bird, there might be an explaation. However, there are literally dozens of unique flightless bird species, basically one per island. Sience says = evolution.

 

[Pure]

Luc said, I think the big problem comes from a misunderstanding of science. Here they have an interesting philosophy, which is both interesting, will likely lead to a peaceful coexistance of religious dogma and science (much as the sun revolving around the earth was eventually incorporated in sermons), and which would be no problem taught in humanities classes across the United States.

This philosophy is not science, does not follows science's rules, and cannot be included in a science class without perverting or destroying what science fundamentally is and means. It was stupid to try and push it there. The judge had no rational choice but to give his decision. Any judge who does differentally shows an immense ignorance to basic science.

This is sad because this battle and any sane judgments rendered on it will hurt intelligent design's mystique and its value as a piece of philosophy

With all due respect, looking for signs of 'intelligence,' treating the world as a watch, and hypothesizing a watch maker is an old, religious position, going back at least to the 18th century, Paley and co. Religious philosophers--i.e., philosophers with religious allegiances--brought it forward.

Hume, in Dialogues on Natural Religion, took that argument apart in great detail, and so the critique of 'design' is an old and venerable piece of philosophy.

I don't see the designer hypothesis as a piece of philosophy; it's a piece of religion, or speculation.

To my knowledge, having read some of the 'design' folk, including Behe, the concept of 'irreducible complexity' is certainly worth a look by philosophers. The issue of 'signs of intelligence' is part of cognitive science and philosophy, as is the nature of intelligence. If you see a Machine running Deep Blue, do its actions show 'intelligence'? What would you have to see to conclude a human intelligence was actually at work, behind the Deep Blue facade?

However the concept is ultimately subject to empirical investigation: whether this feature (of an organism) could have only arisen through intelligent intervention/direction (and not through 'natural processes' of the sort postulated by Darwin and co.). Therefore the concept inhabits and can live only in an area science hasn't figured out. An area constantly shrinking.

To take the wing, example; it's true that as far as flight is concerned, a poorly shaped wing is useless; if that were the whole story there could be no selection. OTOH if the proto wing is serving some other function, like say, assisting in the speed of running, or cooling the animal down under pursuit, or whatever, then selective pressure continues. The scientist's job is to find the pathway, giving the working hypothesis of natural selection.

So a scientist can't have much use, either, for the position-- This can't be explained--for his job is to keep looking for explanations.

Intelligent design is not a part of modern philosophy or modern science. Its interest, IMO, would only be in a theology class--i.e., where the people are antecedently convinced about the existence of a God. Where a 'philosopher' would get involved, would only be on a similar basis--e.g., the philosopher already 'believes' and is, say, at a religious college.
She is then conducting apologetics with a philosophical flair.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Interesting thread and counterthread on the more general topic of science and belief:

Interview with Richard Dawkins: http://beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html

Gregg Easterbrook on Dawkins and Science/Religion Conflicts: http://beliefnet.com/story/86/story_8686.html

Good reading, I thought.

As for philosophy, religion, and science - personally I tend to think of theology as one of the many sub-branches of philosophy, and philosophy largely as that field of knowledge that takes up where empirical evidence ends. In that sense, the question of why the universe came into being (as opposed to "how," indicating the physical mechanism) will always be a question for philosophy. It is not possible to empirically prove or disprove the existence of an acting force that is by definition beyond empirical measurement. One can adopt the philosophy that the only things that exist are those that can be empirically measured, or one can adopt the philosophy that empirical measurement will never be able to detect and measure all aspects of the universe. Neither approach can be proven or disproven, by the nature of the question itself.

I think this is the thing that generally leads to some testiness and frustration on both sides. Each ends up snarling at the other, "You can't prove that!" They tend to mean two different things; the scientists, that there is no irrefutable empirical evidence that there is a God, and the religious folk, that there is no irrefutable empirical evidence that there isn't. Somewhere in the scrum, it's generally forgotten that these arguments do not address the cental divisions between science and religion. Science addresses itself to the empirical investigation of the universe; religion does not. Religion makes bad science, and science makes bad religion - not because either is bad in and of itself, but for the same reason that interpretive dance makes bad architecture. It does not address itself to the same questions, principles, or purposes.

Shanglan

 

[Huckleman2000]

... Religion makes bad science, and science makes bad religion - not because either is bad in and of itself, but for the same reason that interpretive dance makes bad architecture. It does not address itself to the same questions, principles, or purposes.

Shanglan

apropos of nothing, have you ever seen a performance by a dance company called Pilobolus? It is, indeed, the application of interpretive dance to architecture. As I think of it, the 'naked Iraqi pyramid' is not too distant from some of the constructions of this dance company - in fact, I would not be surprised if they incorporated that image into some future work. Still, most of what I've seen of theirs is an exploration of human form and balance.

I don't mean to dispute your example. It just made me think of these dance performances I saw years ago.

 

[Boxlicker101]

apropos of nothing, have you ever seen a performance by a dance company called Pilobolus? It is, indeed, the application of interpretive dance to architecture. As I think of it, the 'naked Iraqi pyramid' is not too distant from some of the constructions of this dance company - in fact, I would not be surprised if they incorporated that image into some future work. Still, most of what I've seen of theirs is an exploration of human form and balance.

I don't mean to dispute your example. It just made me think of these dance performances I saw years ago.

I think the naked Iraqi pyramid was probably inspired by cheerleader pyramids.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think the naked Iraqi pyramid was probably inspired by cheerleader pyramids.

I don't dispute the inspiration.

I'm just saying that there are architectural aspects of modern dance (and cheerleading ) that form a link between the two artistic disciplines. I wasn't trying to contradict Shanglan's point, it was more along the line of a brain fart.

Here's a picture of the dance troupe.

http://www.pilobolus.com/GRAPHICS/splash.jpg

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The thing is, we know very well who wrote the bible and when and even why.

The Pentateuch was written between 600-400 BC in Jerusalem and Shechem by 4 different authors and edited together by a 5th. The reason it was written was to create a national religion for the kingdom of Israel. Not to be outdone, the kingdom of Judah responded with its own version, which--surprise, surprise--were written so as to make Israel look bad. Both versions were redacted to form the Pentateuch, which is why there are so many double stories and contradictions.

See Thomas Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" It's an utterly fascinating story. See how people today fight and die to uphold lines of scripture that were intended as nothing more than petty propaganda against an Israelite king.

It's kind of like fighting and dying over lines we found in an old copy of Mad magazine.

 

[English Lady]

I repeat what I always say about this:

If someone need to battle science because he thinks it threathens his religion, it says two things about him.

First of all that he is ignorant of what science is.

Second of all that he is weak in his own faith.

I adore this sentiment, adore it. Thank you!

R Richard - The creation story was not written at creation, it was written later, it is possibly/probably like the parables Jesus' told. A recogniseable tale to explain something complex that they might not have gotten otherwise. The biblical description of creation doesn't have to disprove evolution nor vice versa. God's days don't match with our days

 

[Huckleman2000]

...God's days don't match with our days

True. And, why should they? I don't presume to know all the ways of god, but I think I can get closer through science. Arriving at even meager understandings do not diminish the wonder and awe at the creator. Interpreting the Scriptures as the inspired words of people who saw god in their lives does not diminish the One who they perceived.

There is a mystery in god, such that I don't know if it's even 'god' or 'God'. Seeing the hand of evolution, or the echoes of the creation, or formation of new stars out of dust - none of these diminishes my wonder.