Theory of Evolution Cage Match

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Notabull]

[Notabull]

One more thing, for now.

Jon, you said:

"My own belief is that Intelligent Design is in fact true, but that we will never find scientific proof of it"

and later,

"...one cannot discount the possibility that given enough evidence, one could legitimately conclude ID. The evidence so far is that is quite unlikely, and I am pretty unimpressed with the claims of ID proponents, but I am also frequently unimpressed by the responses of numerous scientists in how dogmatically opposed they are to anything religious."

It seems you concurrently believe that ID is in fact true, and that the claims for it are weak. Could it be that you *wish* it were true because it fits with your own entirely legitimate religious beliefs, but that the reasonable and logical person within you finds it rather unlikely? I get the impression you're conflicted here.

I don't want to bash your religion BTW. I think religion and belief is a wonderful thing, for those that need and/or want it... I'm just not in that category and am strongly opposed to those that wish to blend religion and science. Unlike nuts and gum, there is just no synergy.

http://www.stuffmagazine.com/articles/i ... nd_gum.jpg

[Alan]

[Notabull]

[jon]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[jon]

I have a expectation of the results of ID based on religious reasons, but as I learn of new facts I would adjust my theology accordingly because I know my understanding both the physical world and theology are very incomplete.

My interest in ID is actually not religious, but having switched sides I noticed a lot of bias in the statements of leading scientists. The statements are just bad epistemology. It could be ignored in the sense that those statements are outside their area of expertise, but because of the large number of religiously oriented people required to support the funding of science, it really matters when statements are made that are both logically incorrect and dismissive of the concerns of those supporters.

For your specific concerns:

1) Science constantly considers and rejects candidate hypothesis. Some scientist may enjoy the valuable work of reconfirming known results, but others want to try out new ideas. Also, what I have read of ID's challenge to the status of knowledge of the molecular origin of life is scientifically important in my opinion. What was presented in text books was not a valid representation of the true state of affairs there. Regardless of how it is resolved, pointed that out was very valuable. Similarly the incorrect idea that evolution is reproduced in fetal development was based on a single set of diagrams someone once drew. ID advocates perform an important function of maintaining accuracy. No one likes to be corrected, and they may think of that as a waste of time, but it isn't. The overall process of how incorrect ideas are incorporated into accepted dogma is something that is vital to study, and evolution is an excellent vehicle for teaching that.

2) Yes, that is a tiresome argument. Perhaps it appeals to people who are more interested in fossils than I am.

3) The moral aspect of education is very important. Both religious and non-religious people should understand each others' point of view. So that should be freely discussed in all academic environments. That's supposed to be what the benefit of diversity and freedom of expression is.

[Notabull]

[WestSideBilly]

[jon]

[Notabull]

[jon]

The Dover School Board acted as the elected representatives of the body of taxpayers. One of the things I liked best about the open Town Meetings in Massachusetts is the experience of seeing how democracy works. People cast their votes and the losing side deals with it. Life goes on, no matter how important the philosophical difference seemed at the time. The days of real religious persecution are long gone in the country (but not elsewhere in the world), and so now it just seems a point of irritability that people don't want to hear a prayer now and then.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The "Congress shall make no law" part is because the purpose of that amendment was to allow Protestant states to make their rules and Catholic states like Maryland make their own rules without interfering with each other. Separation at the state level came years later.

Picking what to present in a school depends on the circumstances and people in that school. So it should be up to the elected bodies who know the circumstances. It would be nice if religion could be separated from education entirely, but there are have been bad consequences of from the 1962 decision to exclude it, in my opinion, that outweigh the simplicity of trying to avoid the topic. Local boards can get out of hand, so State level laws are important to set guidelines, with federal ones to insure protection of basic rights. But the right to not hear something you don't like is not as important to me as reasonable expression of religious freedom.

[Notabull]

[rose-colored-coolaid]