Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

Full story: The Indianapolis Star

Intricacies of Earth life-forms, microscopes challenge evolution ideas In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as ...
Comments
1 - 20 of 792 Comments Last updated Feb 11, 2008
First Prev
of 40
Next Last
Tim

Wellington, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 15, 2007
 
The "lie" isn't evolution, it is creationists dishonestly quote-mining legitimate scientists, misrepresenting scientific findings and perjuring themselves in federal court.

The pseudoscientists purporting to show design are neither modern nor competent -- they are incompetent and medievalist charlatans like Michael Behe,a moribund biochemist who admitted under cross-examination that astrology meets his definition of a scientific theory, and William Dembski, whose pseudomathematics has been described as "written in jello" by a prominent mathematician, and who creates fart-ridden animations ridiculing his opponents.

“Rattling for Chemistry”

Since: Dec 06

Deep Swamps of Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 15, 2007
 
Just got to love this....this retired engineer thinks that "Modern, competent scientists can show that the unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example, demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far higher than anything we can imagine.", I guess he thinks that biological evolutionary research scientists are not modern and competent. Mr. Rose so where are all the research and papers from these so call modern and competent scientist? Well, Mr. Rose I can tell you the fact that there are no modern and competent scientists anywhere that think anything of the sort..........Oh, Behe the darling creationist fellow with the Disco Institute but he is a crackpot and actually acknowledge that ID is on the same par as astrology in the Dover trial. ID Research papers with peer review scrutiny in the competent science community is zero, nothing and nada.

Then Mr. Rose thinks the science of evolution is unchallenged and the biggest lie in education but he retracts a little bit on that by saying since evolution is believed by so many scientists that it should be taught! Wow! Wow! What logic coming from an engineer. I would called that not using any common sense or using any semblance of sensible logic if evolution was a lie. Here is where I know Mr. Rose is lying about evolution not being true......he is pretending to state that it is a lie (but down deep he actually knows that evolution is a fact) to placate the fundamentalist religious zealots who think that the science of evolution threatens their faith based on a strict literal interpretation of the Bible. Mr. Rose do you think it is Christian like to lie? Remember Mr. Rose evolution is not a faith and scientists don't believe in it but accept it as the best explanation that they have to described on the basis of the evidence, facts, and research that all life forms are subjected to evolution.

Mr. Rose, ID is a pseudoscience and the sound robust theory and facts of evolution is real science. Electron microscopes and many state of the art technology instrumentations (ironically designed by "modern" competent engineers along with the needs set forth by "modern" competent research biologist)are tools that "modern" biological molecular scientists used to substantiate the sound theory & fact of evolution which in fact demolished Behe's theory of the bacterium flagellum being intelligently designed in Dover court room. One more fact is that the modern science of evolution has rigoursly stand up to all challenges research and testing of the 20nd and 21st century for over 150 years by the critical thinking scientists with integrity, common sense and logic.

Mr. Rose ID what you are actually promoting is a lie......you want to promote the ID religious apologetics agenda to introduced your brand of religion into science classrooms where it has no business belonging,. Keep the supernatural explanation in churches and religious classes where it belongs....Quit Lying for God Mr. Rose, it makes you look like a fool.
Sheila

Waterford Works, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 15, 2007
 
It isn't just opening minds and texbooks, it's being allowed to question, speek, much lest possibly just mention any alternative to evolution as happened here in Dover. You don't hear about the Biology teacher who testified in court how before all this began started his section on evolution by writing evolution on the blackboard drawing a line down the middle and writing creation on the other side of the line, explaining it is either evolution or religion. If a student dared tried to question this he was shot down quickly.

Sheila Harkins
2005 Dover School Board President
Wayne Adkins

Troy, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 15, 2007
 
"the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many scientists."
Mr. Rose clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of how science education should and does work. Why would he say that he believes that evolution is the biggest lie in education and then say it SHOULD be taught because so many scientists believe it? Science is not taught on the basis of which topic gets the most votes. Theories are scrutinized, tested repeatedly, predictions are made and verified based on them, articles are published in peer reviewed scientific journals etc. If you want to see intelligent design in a science classroom there is one clear way to accomplish that. Support it using the scientific method. Loosening the definition of what science is or teaching topics based on popular votes can only harm science education.

By the way, your bacterial flagellum example was used and refuted at the trial in Dover. You remember that trial don't you? The one where a Republican judge recommended by a senator who supports Creationism and appointed by a Christian president who supports teaching creationism was convinced by the testimony of modern, competent scientists that ID is not science. Your alledgedly competent ID scientists had their chance to show the world that ID is real science and five of them backed out of testifying and the two who did failed to convince a sympathetic Republican judge that ID is even science, let alone GOOD science.
Go ahead Mr. Rose, join the "breathtaking inanity" crowd. But don't expect your honest, rational neighbors to follow suit. If you want to spew your creationist rhetoric, just invite someone to church. Quit trying to invite yourself into our schools.
Who Cares

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 15, 2007
 
You read something like this and then we wonder why our students are so far behind the rest of the world academically. These kinds of baseless arguments are what allowed religious fanatics to capture control of a lot of middle eastern governments that we now fear as enemies. It is the same simple minded doctrine that allows an individual like Osama Bin Laden,(an engineer no less), to perpetuate his religious views around the world and have followers blow themselves up for a misguided belief. A lot of the danger we face today may not be that far removed from our own country! If there is some viable evidence to support ID, then put it on the table for review. To continue to rehash the same old discussion using the same old arguments is kin to arguing with a small child who knows no better. If the world around you scares you and you need something to believe in to comfort yourself, so be it, but keep it where it belongs and out of the classroom. Try believing in individual responsibility for a personís actions and not trying to justify things in the name of some unknown deity, be it evil or good. Science will leave you enough questions by just using the facts, but questions that in time you could answer with supportable truths. Why is religion always attempting to dummy down a society? That is the most pressing question in my mind, what is the ultimate gain from such a pursuit?
Ravilyn Sanders

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 15, 2007
 
So the scientists are the ones who are blindly following dogma obediently without questioning and the religious people are the ones are logical! It is so comical to even read the drivel.

If a scientist could prove Darwin wrong, his or her name would be immortal. Science has a huge reward set up for anyone who dethrones a well established theory. Every major breakthrough in every major field has the potential to contradict and disprove Darwin. Plate tectonics, earth magnetic field reversals, ice cores, rock core samples, deep sea vents, genetics... every field had the potential actually confirmed Darwin, fleshed out the details and strengthened Evolution.

On the other side?
Bible literalism of Newton begat Watchmaker God of Paley, which begat creation science, which begat ID, which is mainly supported by litaralists.

The true believers would try openly to introduce God into schools, not try to sneak God in, as though God is some kind of contraband, with a wink-wink nod-nod Designer.
The young earth creationists are pulling wool over the eyes of moderate Christians with ID. It is high time America wakes up to these con artists.

If Bill Cunningham ex School Board Prez of Dover, PA, really believed in God and the ten commandments, he would not have lied under oath, perjured himself. The last people God needs are these liars and perjurers and con artists advancing His cause. They will only hurt and never help Opus Dei.
Ravilyn Sanders

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 15, 2007
 
hexene wrote:
Behe the darling creationist fellow with the Disco Institute but he is a crackpot and actually acknowledge that ID is on the same par as astrology in the Dover trial.
Hexene,[BOLD] even Behe admits to common descent between chimpanzees and humans.[/BOLD] The Dishonesty Institute is hiding this little detail from its supporters.

Behe is on the creationists' side. Even he could not contradict evolution. Even he could not deny that the Earth is bilions of years old, not 6000 years.

Why don't we ask the creationists to have a long discussion with Behe about the age of earth and the common descent question before suggesting getting ID into schools?
Ravilyn Sanders

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 15, 2007
 
Gordon Rose wrote:
They do this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence
Well tried Gordon. But the antonym for natural is supernatural or unnatural. Not logical. When you allow explanations other "natural", you know what happens? I will give you a preview:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury! The Defense holds that when the defendant fired his gun, an invisible undetectable bullet genie appeared and ate the bullet. And another invisible undetectable gun genie fired another shot that killed the victim. There is no way the prosecution can disprove this theory. You have been taught in school to accept supernatural explanations, you must accept this theory as plausible. If you reject this theory out of hand, Evilutionists have won! Send those evil atheist scientists a message. Accept this theory, Give the benefit of doubt to Mr Trig R Happy and aquit him, that will show them"
Ravilyn Sanders

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 15, 2007
 
[QUOTE who="Sheila Harkins, 2005 Dover School Board President"] You don't hear about the Biology teacher who testified in court how before all this began started his section on evolution by writing evolution on the blackboard drawing a line down the middle and writing creation on the other side of the line, explaining it is either evolution or religion.
[/QUOTE]

Evolution is science, and the teacher should teach science, and creation theory is not science. The teacher did the right thing.

If science conflicts with your religion, please reinterpret the scriptures, try to find the real meaning of the words and resolve the conflict. Denying science is neither good theology nor very prudent.

For example the Ten commandments admonished people not to covet thy neighbors man-slave nor woman-slave.
When lots of Christians felt that slavery is an abomination, the words got changed to man-servant and woman-servant. Many Christian scholars have argued persuasively that the original use of the word slave was wrong, and it should have been bonded-servants all along.

Still fact remains, a wrongly interpreted word existed in the scriptures for centuries and many pious God fearing Christians in the Confederate South gave their lives defending it.

Do something like that for creationism and work out the conflict. When thousands of scientists who dedicate their lives to studying nature say their observations contradict Bible, you owe it to yourself to critically analyze the currently accepted interpretations of the Scriptures.

You don't want to be that poor confederate soldier who died defending an unchristian principle because the religious leaders lacked the vision to critically analyze and interpret the scriptures correctly, do you?
Ravilyn Sanders

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 15, 2007
 
Please provide a preview button for us to proof read our submissions, please.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 15, 2007
 
Sheila wrote:
It isn't just opening minds and texbooks, it's being allowed to question, speek, much lest possibly just mention any alternative to evolution as happened here in Dover. You don't hear about the Biology teacher who testified in court how before all this began started his section on evolution by writing evolution on the blackboard drawing a line down the middle and writing creation on the other side of the line, explaining it is either evolution or religion. If a student dared tried to question this he was shot down quickly.
Sheila Harkins
2005 Dover School Board President
Well, I certainly wouldn't do that in my class.

However, it is my experience (including here on "Topix"), that it is the general creationist view that "evolution" and "religion" don't mix.

Your criticism is what we hear from the creationist side...

The majority of them START with the assumption that any scientist (any "evolutionist"!) is an atheist. I've been told more than once (!) that it's either the Bible or "evolution".

Relatively few scientists hold that view... There are some.
KEEP AN OPEN MIND

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 15, 2007
 
What ever the truth is about our existence, I would say that if this fellow's belief system gets him through the night, then let him believe it. Mythology seems to be a driving force in who we are.Intelligent design may be real, but most likely not the way the "God boys" have been pushing it for several thousand years. So teach it in mythology class until their is some real science to back the idea.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 15, 2007
 
Sheila wrote:
It isn't just opening minds and texbooks, it's being allowed to question, speek, much lest possibly just mention any alternative to evolution as happened here in Dover. You don't hear about the Biology teacher who testified in court how before all this began started his section on evolution by writing evolution on the blackboard drawing a line down the middle and writing creation on the other side of the line, explaining it is either evolution or religion. If a student dared tried to question this he was shot down quickly.
Sheila Harkins
2005 Dover School Board President
So, you want to offer Creationism as an alternative to evolution.

Okay, WHICH Christianism? American Fundamentalist Christian Literalist Creationism? What about Hindu? Babylonian? Greek? Navajo? Satanism? etc.

Each of those has EXACTLY the same amount of proof. Each of them makes exactly the same amount of sense.

If you are who you say you are, your personal cruisade to make everyone worship your religion cost the Dover schools over a hundred million dollars and made your little town the LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD.

Is that what you were elected to do?
Who Cares

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 15, 2007
 
Wow, again the term scientist is thrown around with less then the appropriate connotation to try and lend credence to a cause. Author David Parsons is a meteorologist, just how does this lend credence to his publication? Studying weather patterns does not really make one an expert in biochemistry, embryonic research, nuclear medicine, anthropology, or several other fields within the science community. With this type of logic the kid that chances your oil at the speedy oil change station should also be able to overall the engine in a Lamborghini. Why is it the only experts ever quoted are those outside the scientific field of study that has anything to do with evolutionary theory and study? Hock your propaganda elsewhere; this is inappropriate even for this line of discussion. Trying to use this blog for profit gain to hock your wares, you should be ashamed!
Bing McGhandi

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 15, 2007
 
Why anyone would run such an incompetent article like this is beyond me. The mechanism by which the bacterial flagellum is well known to scientists. It is not as if, as Gordy asserts, there is a vast conspiracy of god-hating scientists. It is so improbable as to be utterly farcical--that every scientist who has ever published in a peer-reviewed biology journal has been part of some conspiracy. Wrong.

Creationists (ID _is_ creationism) also rarely understand evolution, such as Gordo here. He says he can't believe that the bacterial flagellum (the evolutionary history of which is well known, contrary to stubborn and asinine assertions to the contrary) came about by accident. But that's not what natural selection is--it is a LAW, not an accident. It filters out mutations that do not contribute to successful reproduction. When something doesn't reproduce, its traits are not passed on. Only those traits which benefit reproduction survive, and the proof is they reproduce. It's a tautology, but so is much in life (5+5=10 is a tautology, for instance). Wherever you have inheritance (replicators replicating themselves), mutations and limited resources, you have natural selection by reason of the fact that those which don't reproduce don't pass on their genes (some genes are "selected" out of the genepool). As environments are not static and changing, the process of evolution never comes to an end! It's fascinating and elegant stuff.

HJ

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 15, 2007
 
SoTrue wrote:
blah blah blah buy my book blah blah blah... Author David Parsons is a Bible scholar and scientist extraordinaire who's forum name is "SoTrue"... blah blah blah buy my book blah blah blah.
Any school board that TRIES to push through the crap the cDesign Proponentsists are pushing deserves to look that 100 million dollars.
buster

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 15, 2007
 
Isn't a "field engineer for NCR" a cash register repair man? This is what passes for an opinion piece on educational theory? Stick to your replacing keys on a machine, and let the people with big-boy science degrees do the teaching. As a practicing Catholic, the idiotic creationist/intelligent design proponents are repugnant to my God-given ability to think rationally. Keep your religion out of my schools. I will take care of teaching religion myself to my children, thank you.
James Steele

Nashua, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 15, 2007
 
Mr. Gordon, I wonder if it worries you that by changing the definition of science--which is what you suggest--to to allow supernatural explanations for what we observe in the natural world around us, you also open the door to teaching astrology as an alternate explanation of human psychology? Science is limited to natural explanations because that's all we can access. You, yourself suggest that ID finds "intelligence far higher than anything we can imagine," but the proponents of it have no trouble doing that imagining. Since its inception, science has served us well. Since its discovery, evolution has served us well enough to stand up to 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and has been recoginized and funtctions today as the bedrock of modern biology. There is no time nor space here to address all the failings of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Let it be taught in schools of course, but in a cultural studies class where it belongs. It may be interesting, inspiring, but it has never risen to even the thinnest expectations of a scientific endeavor.
TedHOhio

Dayton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 15, 2007
 
Mr. Rose, you stated so many things wrong here I have no idea where to begin. Let's work backwards:
(1) When Darwin published his theories it "didn't look good". The hue and cry that went up put his theories under more scrutiny than any other previously published theories. It has stood up to scientific research and varying religious attacks for 150 years. It is the preeminent biological theories today, more so than 150 years ago!
(2) What smokescreen? Scientists welcome any and all challenges to Evolution and have for years. They have only one requirement Intelligent Design hasn't met, scientific validity. They will debate and research any scientifically viable theory, but as of yet all Intelligent Design is is an idea with a ton of marketing muscle behind it. Only recently have scientists paid it any attention, because of efforts to insert it into science education without its having earned that position.
(3) Common Sense? You are kidding aren't you? Common sense is what Aristotle used when he taught that objects of different weights would fall at different weights. Now we know that to be false. Just because something makes some sort of intuitive sense, doesn't make it valid. I would have thought, based on my common sense, that an NCR field engineer would have had enough education to realize that. So as we can see Common Sense is an interesting guide, but not infallible.
(4) There are hundreds of books that use the analogy that bacterial flagellum operates like an electric motor. You know what an analogy is, that's when things are compared. Cough drops look a like like candy, another analogy, but that doesn't make the two the same thing. Bees fly in a similar way of hummingbirds, but try mating the two together and see what happens? You are making the same tired argument ID proponents have been making for years. "It's designed because I see it ...and it looks designed; therefore it must be designed."
(4)The reason it isn't studied in class is the same reason science class doesn't waste its time on Astrology and Alchemy. Their limited time is 'designed' to focus on plausible, acceptable, and valid explanations of observable phenomena, you know a Scientific Theory!
TedHOhio

Dayton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Dec 15, 2007
 
Ravilyn Sanders wrote:
If a scientist could prove Darwin wrong, his or her name would be immortal.
Darwin himself stated that if anyone could find a biological structure that could not be explained though evolution, his theories would come crashing down. He said he couldn't imagine what it would take to prove the human eye through evolutionary means. Intelligent Design proponents have used those quotes for years supporting their agenda.
Interesting enough that when anyone, like Michael Behe (and an ID proponent) put forth a number of biological mechanisms and claim they could not have been evolved, he can only do that by denying research that proves otherwise, as he did during the Dover Trial.

So in spite of 150 years of research no mechanism has been identified that cannot be explained through evolution, including bacterial flagellum, the human immunity system, blood clotting, and the Eye. Michael Behe's "irreducible Complexity" remains an on paper explanation with no science behind it, he also admitted that during the Dover Trial.

The argument for design relies on the observer being willing to 'see' design in nature. But there is no proof any design actually occurred. Let's balance that against 150 years of testing, explanation, and study in the theories of evolution and you wonder how come it hasn't been disproved? Because to date nothing has come along to disprove it, including creationism and its godless cousin Intelligent Design.

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 40
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Indianapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Indianapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Indianapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Indianapolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••