For those of you who may be wondering, IÂ’ve been pointedly ignoring the comments that Bush made the other day about intelligent design and evolution. However, over the past few days, IÂ’ve seen a LOT of conservatives writing about it. IÂ’m sure there are a lot of liberals writing about it as well, but I donÂ’t read them.
It seems that nearly everyone who is talking about this issue falls into one of two camps. There is a group that thinks that there is a conflict between intelligent design and evolution and another group who thinks that they could co-exist and be taught side-by-side. However, I propose with this post to start a third group. As far as I know, this group consists solely of me, so IÂ’m probably so far off base with this that itÂ’s not even funny. However, this is my proposal.
Neither.
ThatÂ’s right. Neither of these two methods should be taught as fact in any school system. HereÂ’s why:
No matter how you slice it, the theory of intelligent design, at its core, is based on God as the creator of the universe. Granted, some ID’ers may not call Him the God of Christian and Jewish faith, but God, in whatever guise you wish to place him HAS to be at the core of any ID argument. That’s kind of the whole point of ID. And with that in mind, it has no place in our school system. I am NOT a separationist. I do not believe that the Constitution has any phrase or clause that requires the “separation of church and state.” I believe that that is a completely misrepresented and misused statement from a private letter that has been twisted out of all proportion. However, separation notwithstanding, religion is a big deal to me, and as such, I am VERY particular with whom I place my children’s teaching. Just as you wouldn’t want a home economics teacher teaching your son’s Calculus class, I don’t want a biology teacher (and possible Hindu, Muslim, insert-the-name-of-your-alternate-faith-here) teaching my child about religion. And if they were teaching ID, then that is exactly what they would be teaching.
However, evolution being taught as fact within the school system is a complete and total farce. Before all the scientists out there have an apoplexy, let me explain.
The theory of micro-evolution describes minor changes that can happen to a species in order for it to adapt to survive within a current climate. This includes body hair getting thicker and males of the species getting stronger so they can protect their families. Yes, this happens. We see it in different breeds of dogs and cats. We see it in various changes in humans and other species.
What we do not see are these amazing “leaps” of evolution. Or at least any evidence of them. There are large gaps between similar species, but no indication that there was ever anything alive to fill in those gaps. What’s more is that the theory of evolution itself, when applied over too broad an area simply falls apart. After all, according to this theory, the complex machine that is a human being (or an ape, or a dog, or cat, etc) developed in full, by complete random chance from a single celled organism. Now, if nothing else about this theory presents any problems for you, consider the fact of sexual reproduction. Single celled organisms reproduce asexually by splitting. Even if you accept the fact that a large number of these asexually reproducing cells could randomly cluster together and produce some sort of higher life form, you would have to accept the fact that two different clusters of cells did this at the exact same time and one of them produced male organs and one produced female organs. If they didn’t happen at the exact same time, and produce two perfectly working sets of reproductive organs, which they would instinctively know how to use, then that new species would immediately die out. How is this possibly any less of a leap of faith than asking you to believe in God?
Then, of course, there’s the ever-popular question “If man descended from apes, why are there still apes?” Evolution still just has too many unanswered questions to be taken as hard scientific fact and taught to our children as the definitive way that the world was created.
So what should they be taught? They should be taught that we donÂ’t know. They should be taught that there are two schools of thought, but we, as humans do not currently possess the capability to know exactly what happened at the beginning of the world. We can make intelligent guesses, but they should be labeled as such. But as long as lies are taught as scientific fact, I feel that we are doing a grave disservice to our children.
1
Well, this post displays a sufficient level of ignorance that I never have to pay attention to anything Drew ever says again about evolution.
Posted by: hermetic at August 11, 2005 07:32 AM (hrQvk)
2
Yeah this is such an important topic for debate right now while there are thousands of jihadis building bombs in their basements and planning on killing us. Consdiering that fundamentalist Christians are about the only ones to consistently have the balls to stand up to islam, I say let them win this damned trivial argument so we can stop wasting time on it. I'm an atheist, but damn, it's not like it matters really, when people are trying to kill us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 08:18 AM (0yYS2)
3
Actually, Drew, you've just sided with the ID and Creationist people. They also want neither taught as fact. Both are theories, and should be taught as such. Evolutionists are the ones insisting that Evolution, and Evolution alone be taught as a fact and the sole explination for origins.
Welcome aboard.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 11, 2005 08:22 AM (1NhnZ)
4
Or, just work your ass off, live a little more modestly and keep your kids out of public school.
The cost to send your 10 and 12 year olds to Catholic grade school ($650), and your 14-year-old to Catholic High school ($850).
The cost of not having your kids listen to a bull dike driving an 85 Volvo with a Kerry/Edwards sticker and a Darwin pin attached to the rear end.... Priceless.
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 08:40 AM (6mUkl)
5
I have to agree with Drew. Neither side should be taught as truth. The kids need to be informed that nobody knows and there's just speculation.
Posted by: tyler at August 11, 2005 08:42 AM (Y9Lwb)
6
I guess I will join you in group three. You have expressed my feelings better than I could.
Posted by: Razorgirl at August 11, 2005 09:31 AM (H+tJ8)
7
That is, perhaps, one of the most rational and well-thought-out responses to this I have read.
However (you knew it was coming, right?) - WRT sexual reproduction it is possible that it co-developed. IOW, a species that reproduced asexually evolved into being able to do both - either through completely independent means (e.g - budding + sex) or hermaphroditically. Of course, AFAIK there is no evidence of this so it falls into your no example of great leaps argument, but still a possibility.
Anyway - I personally am of the belief that they do co-exist in the real world and; incompetent/biased teachers aside, see no reason to not have them taught side by side. Not necessarily taught as "The Truth"
(TM), but atleast presented in class.
Oh, and Danny has an even better idea - private schooling. However, I have an EVEN BETTER idea that I am hoping my wife and I are able to swing - Home Schooling.
(And, perhaps more importantly - everyone should take an active role in helping their child(ren) learn, above and beyond what ANY schooling offers!)
/TJ
...
NIF
Posted by: TJ at August 11, 2005 09:34 AM (/0bzs)
8
Whoops - think I meant to agree with Brad about the homeschooling. Perhaps a line break or something between comments would help me overcome my psuedo-lexdysia
/TJ
Posted by: TJ at August 11, 2005 09:45 AM (/0bzs)
9
i agree with Drew on this and fall in the third group....after all evolution and creationism are just theories and neither can be proven or misproven...after all, humans have only been around for what???....3 million years or so???...and modern humans for 30,000 years or so???...and being that we have such short life spans, who can say how it all really works...anyone been around to actually watch and record a species change and evolve or be created???...didnt think so....so science and the church can crow all they want about how it all works ,but no one has the actual PROOF, the TRUTH....to claim so would be really pretty arrogant of the human race...we always claim that we have the proof and than "poof" something else shows up and changes it all around and we have the nerve to act all surprised...we are not omnipotent so we do not know it all and we never will
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 09:51 AM (IJ51c)
10
Evolution takes as much faith (or more) than does ID. They should both be taught as theory, or neither taught at all.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 10:24 AM (8e/V4)
11
Howie,
ID and creationism have two distinct meanings. The former is a scientific debunking of evolution, the other is the Biblical account of creation.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 10:28 AM (8e/V4)
12
The only facts in the discussion is how little we actually know. The lefties try and make a lot of things which can't be proved out to be facts.
To start another thread, man caused global warming comes to mind.
Posted by: bill at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (7evkT)
13
Brad is right, although I send mine to a Baptist school. By the way, one of my kids is in college on a full engineering scholarship. Just so yall know that creationism didn't affect his science or math scores.
The best single thing I ever did for my kids was to take them out of the public school system.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (DDXXI)
14
Drew,
I don't agree--but Gawd I love the smell of touching the third rail in the morning.
Seriously. We need to start a new blog. One which only discusses ID, abortion, and, er, I know there's a third one in there that we're not supposed to be talking about-THAT.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 10:35 AM (JQjhA)
15
I have a radical, some would say crazy, idea. Long ago and far away, in a mythical land where some say Western civilization was born, students were taught by great thinkers, some say the greatest of all time, not in the arts of "Socialological Pedagogic Methods in a Context of Gender Equality and Social Justice in a Post Colonial Era of Big Oil's Use of the Military Industrial Complex to Oppress Gay Asian Womyn's Aromatherapy Studies in the Thrid World, from a Revolutionary Anti-Zionist Perspective 101", but rather in the arts of Logic, Rhetoric, Critical Analysis, History, and Ethics. Students were taught to think. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but it produced men like Alexander and Caesar, not to mention Winston Churchill, and to me, that makes it seem worth reinstating as a teaching method, rather than just rote indoctrination and preparation for future institutionalization in the System.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 11:41 AM (0yYS2)
16
oh, snaps!
i guess we better not teach the theory of relativity, either. idiot luddites and flat earthers....what should we teach in schools? did you know that most education degree programs for high school math and physics now require an introductory course in quantum field theory? i guess we can't mention that either.
this is easily the most idiotic post i've read on the subject.
Dr. Shackleford, may i recommend the following topics for your new blog?
ESCR
Schiavo
gay marriage
i'm sure there are more.
;-)
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 11:59 AM (JREvR)
17
IM
Are you suggesting that we allow the little bastards to learn to think for themselves? Not on my watch mister.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 11:59 AM (jPCiN)
18
Well, folks, I guess I have to change my position. After all, matoko kusanagi and hermetic have SUCH convencing counter-arguments.
Actually, the two of you prove one of the points that I've always held. When evolutionists (or lefties) disagree with you, they don't try to argue or prove their point, they simply go "well you're certainly an idiot for thinking that way."
Rusty: I'm all up for starting another blog. I don't have my own server for nothing. And yeah, isn't it great coming in at 5:30 AM and trying to start a shitstorm?
Posted by: Drew at August 11, 2005 02:25 PM (T0Mi7)
19
Evolution is taught in many private schools as well--even, sadly, Catholic ones.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 11, 2005 02:41 PM (x+5JB)
20
why drew, how unkind...i was merely agreeing with you...if we cannot teach
Theory of Evolution in schools, why then we cannot teach
Theory of Relativity, Estimation
Theory,
Theory of Error-correcting Codes, Quantum Field
Theory, etc. etc.
lol.
i apolo for the name calling--but aren't you provoking me and hermetic? That is what you IDists always say, when we scient types are so stunned by your random pronouncements that we can barely get our breath. If you don't want us to call you idiots, don't act like idiots.
Frankly, i quite believe in empirical data and the scientific method--haven't you adequately proven you're an idiot with this argument?
QED
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:26 PM (JREvR)
21
Are you expecting them to know the difference between a postulate a theory and a law. Dream on.
Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 03:35 PM (D3+20)
22
It doesn't matter Howie. I cannot agree with the tactic of using science to prove G-d, because I don't think it's possible and I think it detracts from real science, but I will tell you that the dishonesty about what we can prove regarding evolution as the life source on earth is fairly stunning. It's advocates are using the time honored trick of allowing one word to stand proxy for 2 distinct concepts. Simply put, they want it accepted that the proven part of the field of thought can stand as the unproven part as well.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (lVjfM)
23
Howie.
Lobby to insert ID into college curriculums then, where they should know the difference. Let it stand or fall on its own merits.
And where students can
choose to take it. or not.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:43 PM (JREvR)
24
The two of you act as if evolution has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you're so sure of it, then why not try answering some of the original questions that I raised? Problem is you can't. Yet every day, our kids are taught that evolution on a macrocosmic scale is simply a fact of life. Since this is untrue, it shouldn't be taught. Maybe you should try teaching the hypothesis of evolution. Except anyone who knows a lick of science knows that doesn't work either.
You see, the scientific theory that I was taught shows us that a theory is only a working theory until a case is found where it does not apply. No case has ever been found where the theory of relativity fails. Unfortunately, evolution cannot make the same claim.
And yet I shouldn't expect any more of an argument than that from someone who's only rebuttal so far has been "you're an idiot." Try answering the questions rather than proving yourself the idiot.
Posted by: Drew at August 11, 2005 03:45 PM (T0Mi7)
25
I'm pretty much saying the same as you Drew. There is evolution as has been described with accepted scientific practice, and then there is 'evolution' as postulated as being the source of life on earth. They are not equal, and one does not yet provide proof of the other.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 11, 2005 03:54 PM (lVjfM)
26
drew, if you want ID to be treated as a legitimate peer alternative theory with evolution, then the Discovery Institute should fund research assistantships and chairs at major colleges, instead of ginning up propaganda for school boards. Is ID a real science or not?
Holes in the theory of evolution? there are a lot more holes in quantum mechanics and cosmology. why aren't you attacking those disciplines?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 03:59 PM (JREvR)
27
Why am I forced to pay property taxes to support a school system I do not agree with and do not use? I pay to educate my kids privately and do not need or want the state to educate my children.
People like Matoko force their beliefs down my familyÂ’s throat without any 2nd thought. However, they violently object to any of my familyÂ’s beliefs and refuse to include them in a public school curriculum.
I donÂ’t expect Matoko to support my school, why does he and other libs demand I support theirs?(with my money)?
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 06:57 PM (3OPZt)
28
brad, there is a difference between belief and science.
i have no objection to ID being included in a comparative religion curriculum. like i said, if ID is really science, let it prove its bones in university acadame.
don't like your taxes paying for public school? move.
a lot of countries have private school systems.
this is America.
and i'm a grrl--or at least i used to be....hmmm....maybe i'm just a cyborg now.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 07:37 PM (gNc4O)
29
Move? I live here, I just object to paying for what you demand I believe in. You would not pay to support my beliefs? No you would not.
You take my money, I do not take yours.
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 08:06 PM (3OPZt)
30
My new political party. Atheists for Christians. Since they should turn the other cheek. We are not bound by a silly rule such as that.
Maybe we should wear brown shirts? Just think, we wouldn't have to do the Christian thing. Am I on to something here?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:08 PM (wJPgF)
31
Get them Matoko. My kind of girl. I don't agree or disagree with either side. I just like Japanese American women. So I kiss up to them at every opportunity. You never know. Are you really a freshman?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 11, 2005 09:27 PM (CBNGy)
32
Thanks anyway Greyrooster, I can fight my own battles.
As much as the lefties think we are trying to enforce our will on them, the opposite is true I canÂ’t get far enough away from them.
Regarding your comment on the Brownshirts, the left would have you think itÂ’s the right wearing them, but we on the right have much more to fear from them. I have no control over the public school system In WA State. It is a dictatorship run by the WEA under the NEA. I just wish I could opt out of paying for something that I have no control over and is so mismanaged.
Last Fall after the WA governors election was stolen by the King CO machine (Seattle) in favor of Gov. Fraudouire, Union reps were breaking up protests by GOP supporters in Olympia. They tore signs from people, pushed and spit on Republicans and generally created atmosphere of fear for the Rossi supporters. It looked to me like Germany in 1930Â’s. There are indeed brown shirts out there; we in the metro areas of the West Coast know them well. They are on the left not the right.
Posted by: Brad at August 11, 2005 09:50 PM (6mUkl)
33
lol, i'm not a brown shirt--i'm a browncoat!
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/
and i am also a registered republican and i fervently object to anyone pushing ID-as-science on
anyones' children.
like i said before, if ID is really science, let it prove it's bones in universities first.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 11:06 PM (gNc4O)
34
ID belongs in school the way the tower of babel story belongs in Spanish/French/Grammar classes to explain why we use different words for the same thing.
Posted by: h0mi at August 11, 2005 11:46 PM (LuPL2)
35
Drew, the reason no-one has answered your questions is that you are so blisteringly ignorant on the subject that it would take several hundred pages of basic biology before you would be able to understand the answer - which would be that your questions are total nonsense.
If man descended from apes, why are there still apes?
Ye gods and little fishes, I can't believe that people are still trotting out that one. The reason there are still apes is that there is no reason for there
not to be apes.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 12, 2005 12:35 AM (RbYVY)
36
here's my question, drew.
of course, your "teach neither" is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize ID.
Who could possibly be qualified to teach ID in a science curriculum? Where are the professors of ID, the research assistants, the graduate students, the underclassmen in "theory of ID" classes?
will someone answer my question?
If ID is Science, where is it in university research programs?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 01:05 AM (gNc4O)
37
Ah, now I see the problem, matoko. You simply didn't read my original post. You just saw ID and evolution and assumed I must be an idiot. Hmmm, I wonder what that makes you?
No, when I say "neither," it's not a thinly veiled attempt at anything. I gave the reasons that ID should not be taught and that's exactly what I think. I'm not trying to raise it to the level of anything. And if I were, I'd have to lower it to the level of evolution for anything to become equal.
Pixy Misa: I see you belong to the same "I don't agree with you so you must be an idiot" group. It's amazing how I can point out that argument three times and yet people still try to use it. If you're so brilliant in biology, then just answer one simple little question. What purpose would an asexually reproducing organism have for producing sexual organs. If there is aready a perfectly acceptable means of reproduction, then why start another, more inefficient method?
Oh, and your "because there's no reason for there not to be apes" has to be the stupidest argument that I have EVER heard. According to your "theory," there's every reason for apes not to exist. The only reason they would "evolve" into humans would be for survival. If this were the case, then obviously survival could not continue without the proscribed changes, so how did the remaining apes survive? Which also opens up a whole new series of questions. Humans are hardly more fit to survive in the wilderness than apes, so why would there evolution take that direction? Did they domesticate themselves and begin living in shelters and then DEVOLVE into humans?
Posted by: Drew at August 12, 2005 06:39 AM (HQiW4)
38
drew...
Hmmm, I wonder what that makes you?
An empiricist?
you are equating evolution and ID as peer theories...not me.
and yes, your suggestion that evolution should not be taught, does prove you an idiot.
pixy is right, your ignorance of the process of evolution is woeful.
changes in the genome can arise as point mutations. these mutations are selected for or against within the breeding population based on reproductive fitness. so humans became a more successful branch of apes, but the rest of apes remained in their environmental niche.
It is truly astonishing to me that you don't see the advantage of recombination and genetic variability in sexual reproduction.
where did you go to school?
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 08:22 AM (gNc4O)
39
FYI, drew, to make this perfectly clear, there are species of animals which are natural hermaphrodites, possessing both sets of sexual organs in one organism, like earthworms. those species can reproduce either sexually or asexually. this was the intermediary step. no divine intervention required.
which you would have known if you had had a decent high-school education.
;-)
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 08:33 AM (gNc4O)
40
Ah! At last. We are finally getting around to sexual reproduction. Thats the part I like.
Speaking of sexual reproduction. Today the court sentenced that gorgeous phys Ed teacher Pamela Rogers to 9 months in prison. That is the most wacko thing I have ever heard of. This beautiful woman could bring happiness and education to hundreds of teenagers.
I think it is horrible to be sentenced to jail for doing what you were hired to do. She was hired to be a physical education teacher. That is exactly what she was doing. PHYSICALLY EDUCATING one of her students. For this she goes to jail. Just doesn't make sense.
They didn't make teachers who look that good when I went to school. If they had I would have left the local Baptist preacher's daughter alone.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:36 PM (0zyYw)
41
Don't know Brad. She's doing pretty good.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 09:41 PM (0zyYw)
42
Thankfully, sheÂ’s probably too intelligent to click on the Yoda thread that is reserved for the lower primates.
Posted by: Brad at August 12, 2005 11:37 PM (6mUkl)
43
What! Yoda is the one true God. No one kills anyone in his name. He doesn't hold his hand out of money every Sunday. His followers molest no one. Heresy! Heresy! Fatwa against Brad. He has defiled our saviour. We Yodist are a new religion so we are unsure of how to handle heretics. Therefore, we will just act like all major religions before us. Someone get a large stake and some firewood. Ah, but to save his soul we must first put his body on the rack. Then cut his head off. Then we will hang him and then burn him at the stake. When he freely confesses to his heresy his soul will be saved. Thank Yodism. The religion of peace. Saving souls the old fashion way.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:28 AM (CBNGy)
44
Rooster,
This saucy little heathen is leading you down the wrong path.
Posted by: Brad at August 15, 2005 01:06 PM (3OPZt)
45
You have to start with the understanding that what we have here is an epistemological problem. In doing Science, we have agreed that our methodology will be premised on things that can be measured or tested, directly or indirectly. Thus, "Science" is based on the premise that non-natural causes will NEVER be considered as legitimate explanations for what we are investigating. God's actions in the world cannot be measured or tested, whether or not they actually exist. But for practical purposes, in the absence of anyone making it a point to tell students this, it is understandable that many students conclude that the procedural point is a substantive claim about the non-existence of God.
This idea - this fundamental procedural assumption - is never explained to the students as being itself non-provable. As a result, there is a subtext in any science class, and in any articulation of the theory of evolution or the mechanism of natural selection, that "God does not exist." This subtext is not really intended to be a claim that He does not exist, but merely that as a part of the procedures we use to do "Science," his actions cannot be part of any scientific explanation.
Now, because of the Supreme Court's rulings about the relationship of religion and the government, there does not seem to be a way to properly explain what that subtext really means, at least in the public schools. Attempts to address the question of God directly are ruled out of bounds by the courts. Attempts to point out the inherently "Godless" nature of Science, particularly in the topic of Evolution, are treated as back door attempts to do what the courts have said cannot be done - namely, talk about God.
Thus, the accidental coalition between "Science" and the courts has the effect of teaching our children that God does not matter.
Enter ID. ID challenges the fundamental notion of Science that God cannot be measured or tested, directly or indirectly. Strictly speaking, ID is NOT "Science." But that does not mean that ID is false. It merely means that what we call Science cannot encompass God's actions in the world without turning into something that is not "Science" in the first place.
What we need in the schools is not a requirement that ID be taught, or that Evolution not be taught, or that they should be offered as two "scientific" explanations of creation, but rather, a course on Epistemology - a course on what it means to "know" something. The course should start, not with ID or Science, but with Mathematics, which is entirely unprovable yet obviously a legitimate way of knowing the world.
And as part of this course, it should be made clear to the students that people like Richard Dawkins, who thinks that evolutionary theory disproves the existence of God, have no greater "scientific" authority for making such a claim than people like John Polkinghorne (former dean of physics at Cambridge) have to make a "scientific" claim that the incredibly fine tolerances of the physical universe are so unlikely that only the existence of God can explain why we exist at all.
Frankly I don't see that ID and the theory of evolution or natural selection are mutually exclusive. I certainly wouldn't go around saying that God couldn't use evolution to create life if that's how He wanted to do it. And clearly, if God wants to balance the universe on a set of extremely narrow tolerances in the relationship of, say, hydrogen to oxygen, He can do so and evidenly has. But I don't see how Science could be used to prove or disprove any of that.
Posted by: harmon at August 17, 2005 12:40 AM (r+Wy6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
