Teaching evolution -- or not?

[Pilgrim]

The judiciary operates without check, particularly once they abandon the original intent of the Constitution to enable them to reach the decision they want - see Kelo v. New London, the eminent domain case

 

Actually, Kelo is an example that proves my point. The legal reasoning on Kelo was sound - nothing in the prior cases interpreting the language of the takings clause prevented the taking in that case.

 

Eebie, before we get too far on this issue I want to try to clarify, for the last time, that I DO NOT believe that the Declaration of Independence in any way the law of the land, or that it forms the basis for any legal action. But, just as those who would construe a law may look to outside material such as the Federalist Papers, they may also look to the D of I for a sense of the movers and shakers of the time. Here's a gimme for you - the guys who signed the Declaration were not the same crew that drafted and signed the Constitution. The latter bunch probably were a bunch of atheists .

 

That statement that Kelo is basically a conservative decision was a giggle I heard from quite a number of liberals (I don't know if I include you in that designation or not - and it doesn't matter) at the time Kelo came out - "Hee, hee, hee. Damn conservatives hoist on their own petards."

 

Nice try, but except in the chambers of five members (which is just enough ) of the Supreme Court, that dawg won't hunt.

 

Kelo did a couple things that keep it from being as simple a thing as you say.

 

• Kelo is founded on a clear corruption of language. The Founders used the word use as the basis for a taking. The Supreme Court has decided that purpose must have been what the Founders meant to say. As I understand it, the premier rule of construing a statute is to first consider the clear language of it. Use seems a pretty clear, unambiguous word to me, whereas purpose is a pretty frightening one in this context. That word casts a pretty broad net.
  
• For the first time as far as I know, a private citizen can initiate a taking, with confirmation flowing from the controlling government.
  
• The resultant taking is for the beneft of the citizen initiating the taking, as long as the government benefits in some fashion.
  

 

The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 was adopted by the Assembly after the Revolution there. Article 17 approaches takings this way:

Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

 

This is just irrelevant, immaterial speculation on my part, but it seems to me that perhaps the Supreme Court (in the earlier cases expanding the justifications for takings), saw that and decided it was more suitable language for what they wanted to do - "public necessity" is a much broader term than "public use", and that is what it has come down to for us.

 

Kelo clearly strikes at the fundamental right to peaceful possession of your property. Nobody any more can suppose that he really owns anything if the government thinks it appears useful.

 

So speak to me not of it being a conservative decision; it's not. Kelo, at its heart, provides just one more way for the government to extract funds from the governed, and the particularly contemptible aspect of it is that the people most affected are typically those with the most to lose in such things for the benefit of those who already have much. The Court might as well have said "We recognize that governments always needs more money, and this provides one more tool for them."

 

Seth said:

Indeed, and I have difficulty understanding the conservative backlash against this decision in that it (as David points out) represents a perfect example of a strict 'it's not in there' reading of the Constitution.

Seth, if you're speaking of Schiavo, I agree.

If you mean Kelo, then you've got it exactly backwards.

 

Jamie said:

The D-of-I was the seminal event it's true, but I still consider it a relatively "primative" event--as in primary, crude, simple: akin to the "primordial" ooze from which (it is theorized) we all came. I consider it something akin to the heated argument wherein the rebellious teenager finally tells his parents off, storms out of the house and slams the door.

Jamie, we focus differently on the Declaration of Independence. You look at it an see a . . . well, declaration of independence, a list of grievances followed by the slam of the door you mention.

 

However, I see in it an equally important announcement to the world of a new relationship between man and his government, possible because rights flow from God, not man! And from that announcement flow the democracies that exist in the world now.

 

The Founders were all pretty much in agreement that they were getting the shaft from King George (Hmmmmmmm . . . . ), and it didn't take too much coercion to get the colonial representatives to all sign off on the initial Declaration (not that they thought they'd get it without a fight), but when it came to hammering out the nitty-gritty details of how the heck to run a country composed of such disparate "faiths" it got a lot tougher. Granted, there were probably proportionately few Muslims or Hindus or even Atheists in the early colonies, but by their bold "Declaration" and putting the idea out there that "All MEN are created equal" they ended up starting something that would become much bigger that they ever imagined--or even intended.

. . .

Remember that their narrow definition of "All MEN" really meant all white, male, freeborn, landed gentry. It took many forward thinking people--including some sitting on those courts that you despise so much--to finally, painfully slowly bring that "Creator-granted" ideal into the form it has today.

. . .

The abomination of slavery was a non-issue to the Founders, it took almost 100 years, but the slaves were eventually freed (13th Amendment 1865) at the cost of (by some estimates as high as) 700,000 lives (and not including the uncounted numbers of lynchings) and a lingering resentment that is still felt today . . . The early attempts at "equality" viv-a-vis the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments as well as the tumultous period of "Reconstruction" (1865-1877), were still so ineffective that it was not until the modern Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's that some semblance of these lofty "Creator-granted" rights were finally enjoyed by a larger cross-section of the populace.

 

That's mistaken in a couple of ways, Jamie. I point them out, not to make debating points or to quibble, but because they result in a skewed (IMHO) view of the importance of what the Founders did when they wrote the Constitution.

 

Actually, it didn't take much coercion, but it did take a lot of persuasion and outright arm-twisting. And even then, it was a damn near-run race. Material I've read indicates that less than half the people in the colonies outright favored independence, and an approximately equal percentage were Loyalists. And a great many just didn't get wrapped around the axle over the whole thing.

 

When they wrote the Constitution the Founders included a provision for amendment to address needed change. They did not give the Supreme Court the right to do it; the Court arrogated that right unto itself in 1803. The expansion of rights to blacks, indians, and women were accomplished just that way, by amendment, not by fiat from the Court. Then, when (as you note) the amendments themselves proved insufficiently effective, they were given strength by statute based in the Constitution, which is how it ought to be. And, as Eebie observed about democracy in another post here, if the political consensus can't be gathered, then it just doesn't get done. It should not be done by an unelected elite.

 

And finally, the issue of slavery was absolutely, positively not a nonissue to the Founders. In fact, the Constitutional Convention nearly foundered () on the issue. The necessary compromises are found in Article 2, clause 3, and Article 9, clause one. Abolitionist sentiment was strong at the Convention, but the new country needed the southern colonies, so . . . as is necessary sometimes to achieve an end, they deferred addressing the make or break issues.

 

And finally, they understood very well that they were starting something bigger than they were, and they intended just exactly that. In 1782 they adopted a motto for the great seal. It said Novus Ordo Seclorum", or A New Order for the Ages. Yeah - they understood what they had declared.

 

And finally, Bob said:

No meaning, it just makes the chemicals in my head feel good (A bit like Guinness does, I think I'll go and hunt for some)

Bob, those chemicals - are they residue of one ingested years ago, or of more recent vintage? :grin

 

Pilgrim

[DavidEBSmith]

Kelo is founded on a clear corruption of language. The Founders used the word use as the basis for a taking. The Supreme Court has decided that purpose must have been what the Founders meant to say. As I understand it, the premier rule of construing a statute is to first consider the clear language of it. Use seems a pretty clear, unambiguous word to me, whereas purpose is a pretty frightening one in this context. That word casts a pretty broad net.

 

If the meaning was so clear, why would people be litigating it? There are a lot of words that have different meanings now than in the 1700s, are you sure that "use" meant the same thing then as now? And is the meaning of "public use" any more or less plain than the meaning of "establishment of religion", "well regulated militia", "unreasonable searches and seizures", or "cruel and unusual punishments"? Taking the latter as an example, punishments that were not so unusual in the days of the Founders included whipping, branding, ducking, slitting of noses and cutting of ears. Are we to interpret the Constitution as meaning that only those punishments considered cruel and unusual in 1789 are forbidden - freezing the development of society two hundred years in the past - or should we interpret the Constitution as establishing the more general principle that we forbid what society comes to understand as cruel and unusual?

 

As Kelo discusses, at one time the meaning of "public use" was thought to be "owned by and open to the general public". We've come to understand that that interpretation makes the takings clause a near-nullity. Was the takings principle so important that the Founders put it into the Bill of Rights, and yet so narrow that the only "uses" for which government could take private property would be for parks and roads? If the government wants to build a military base, is it forbidden to use the takings clause to acquire the property because it won't be open to the public? No, that's nonsensical. And if the government takes land for a military base, and later closes the base and sells off the land to a private developer, does that violate the takings clause? Again, an absurdity. If the government gives away the land to a private developer to build a private hospital in a town that has no hospital, can you say is there absolutely no public benefit there? Now you're squarely in Kelo territory.

 

For the first time as far as I know, a private citizen can initiate a taking, with confirmation flowing from the controlling government.

 

The point you miss about Kelo is that it is showing judicial deference to a legislative decision. Kelo says that it's up to the legislature to decide what public benefits flow from a taking, and that the courts will defer to that decision unless it's very, very clear that there's no public benefit whatsoever. That's why it's the very opposite of judicial activism - the Kelo court says that it's not the court's job to second-guess the legislature:

 

Just as we decline to second-guess the City’s considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City’s determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project. “It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch.”

 

However the taking gets initiated - if it's a bureaucrat who comes up with the plan, or a private entity - if the legislature decides that there's a public benefit, and that decision is not too unbelievable, the courts won't interfere (at least not on the basis of the Federal constitution). Kelo tells courts they must refuse to rewrite the law except in extreme circumstances. So don't blame the courts, blame the legislature for taking private property.

 

And realistically speaking, a large part, if not most, legislation is initiated by some private entity wanting to get a benefit for themselves. Whether it's a tax break for companies making X, or a tariff for companies exporting Y, or a developer looking for a zoning change to build some project, legislation doesn't just spring up from the fertile minds of our all-seeing and all-knowing wise representatives in the legislature. Legislation comes from somebody calling their state rep or alderman and saying "Hey, can you change this law for me?" Kelo says that so long as this process is not corrupt or manipulated purely for private benefit, the courts should keep their noses out of it.

 

The resultant taking is for the beneft of the citizen initiating the taking, as long as the government benefits in some fashion.

 

Again, somebody benefits from all legislation. (At least I hope so). And there is some public benefit from that private benefit. Last year in Chicago a bunch of homeowners successfully lobbied to have a cap on increases in property taxes, to prevent property taxes from doubling, tripling or quadrupling at the triennial reassessment. Did the citizens initiating the legislation privately benefit from it? Absolutely. Was there a public benefit? Arguably yes - it allowed fixed- and lower-income homeowners to be able to afford to pay their property taxes, keeping them in the neighborhoods, not forcing them to sell out to developers who would build larger buildings resulting in more traffic, more congestion, more drain on city services, and spiraling higher property taxes for the remaining owners.

 

Kelo clearly strikes at the fundamental right to peaceful possession of your property. Nobody any more can suppose that he really owns anything if the government thinks it appears useful.

 

If you rephrase the takings clause of the fifth amendment, it says "if the goverment pays a property owner just compensation, and if it wants to do it for a public use, the government can take private property." The Constitution has never provided an absolute right to ownership of private property unfettered by the possibility that the government may decide that it needs it. Now, you can wax philosophical about whether there is a natural right emanating from some deistic Creator to inviolate ownership of private property, and Marxists could wax philosophical that there is no right to private property because everything belongs to the people through the state, and followers of Proudhon could wax philosophical that private property is theft and everything belongs to everybody and nobody. But in the real world, the Founders had a lot of philosophical discussions, and they decided to write it into the Bill of Rights that the government could take your property (with just compensation) if it thinks it's useful. Don't like it, don't gripe to Justice Stevens, gripe to Madison and Jefferson and those guys.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

You guys sure have gone far afield from the original subject...

[Bob Palin]

You guys sure have gone far afield from the original subject...

By design or evolution?

[Pilgrim]

You guys sure have gone far afield from the original subject...

By design or evolution?

 

Not just by design, but by Intelligent Design.

 

Pilgrim

[DavidEBSmith]

You guys sure have gone far afield from the original subject...

 

Ah, OK, Michael Behe, leading proponent of ID, recently appeared on Faux News's Hannity and Colmes:

 

COLMES: Who's the designer?

 

BEHE: Well, as I've said since 1996 when I published "Darwin's Black Box," I'm a Catholic. I think a good candidate for the designer is God. But that is not straight — that's not a conclusion that you come from ,from the structure of the bacterial flagellum.

 

COLMES: What would be the other options if it's not God?

 

BEHE: Well, you know, other things that would strike us as, you know, as pretty exotic, you know. Space aliens or time travelers or something strange.

 

COLMES: What about any of this is scientific?

 

Indeed.

[Pilgrim]

Kelo is founded on a clear corruption of language. The Founders used the word use as the basis for a taking. The Supreme Court has decided that purpose must have been what the Founders meant to say. As I understand it, the premier rule of construing a statute is to first consider the clear language of it. Use seems a pretty clear, unambiguous word to me, whereas purpose is a pretty frightening one in this context. That word casts a pretty broad net.

 

If the meaning was so clear, why would people be litigating it?

 

To achieve a desired end. Goverments and their handmaiders (in this case, developers) will always push the boundaries of their power outward. The Constitution is intended to circumscribe the possible.

 

As Kelo discusses, at one time the meaning of "public use" was thought to be "owned by and open to the general public". We've come to understand that that interpretation makes the takings clause a near-nullity. Was the takings principle so important that the Founders put it into the Bill of Rights, and yet so narrow that the only "uses" for which government could take private property would be for parks and roads? If the government wants to build a military base, is it forbidden to use the takings clause to acquire the property because it won't be open to the public? No, that's nonsensical. And if the government takes land for a military base, and later closes the base and sells off the land to a private developer, does that violate the takings clause? Again, an absurdity. If the government gives away the land to a private developer to build a private hospital in a town that has no hospital, can you say is there absolutely no public benefit there? Now you're squarely in Kelo territory.

That is a very disingenuous approach. "The public" is the people, and the people are the government. When a taking is for government use (whether open to the public or not) it is for "public use". For the government to seize private property and turn it over to someone else for private use just so the government can profit from it is an evil thing, especially when he who will profit can kick off the whole process.

 

For the first time as far as I know, a private citizen can initiate a taking, with confirmation flowing from the controlling government.

 

The point you miss about Kelo is that it is showing judicial deference to a legislative decision. Kelo says that it's up to the legislature to decide what public benefits flow from a taking, and that the courts will defer to that decision unless it's very, very clear that there's no public benefit whatsoever. That's why it's the very opposite of judicial activism - the Kelo court says that it's not the court's job to second-guess the legislature:

. . .

However the taking gets initiated - if it's a bureaucrat who comes up with the plan, or a private entity - if the legislature decides that there's a public benefit, and that decision is not too unbelievable, the courts won't interfere (at least not on the basis of the Federal constitution). Kelo tells courts they must refuse to rewrite the law except in extreme circumstances. So don't blame the courts, blame the legislature for taking private property.

 

Eebie, I understand the part about deference to a legislative decision. As a conservative I'd even admire it if, IF, it didn't imply an abandonment by the Supreme Court of its role in standing between the citizenry and the tyrranies of government. The purpose of the Constitution, and particularly the purpose of the Bill of Rights, is to protect a citizen(s) from the government and its legislative decisions. The Bill declares that some conduct by government is just not proper. Takings are indeed necessary sometimes, so the Founders permitted them. But they the practice was hedged around the edges by saying "public use" and "just compensation".

 

You said in your post that a certain interpretation of the fifth amendment makes the concept of takings "a nullity". To me, Kelo is what renders it a nullity - protection is gone. There is no piece of property for which someone cannot make a case for taking under Kelo. The Court might as well have said that governments can accept bribes - "Seize this property for me and I'll give you money" is what it amounts to. Even Alexander Hamilton would have a conniption fit over that.

 

And realistically speaking, a large part, if not most, legislation is initiated by some private entity wanting to get a benefit for themselves . . . Kelo says that so long as this process is not corrupt or manipulated purely for private benefit, the courts should keep their noses out of it.

Mmmm-hmmmm. And they got it dead wrong in this case - they've abandoned their most legitimate role in the scheme of government.

 

But it's a moot point, of course, a done deal.

 

Obviously, we have a difference of view about the Constitution (which is not say mine is right and yours wrong). You see the things it permits the government to do; I see the things it forbids.

 

Pilgrim

 

p.s. What do you think; was Mitch giving us a hint?

[smiller]

p.s. What do you think; was Mitch giving us a hint?

 

Maybe... but your discussion beats the hell out of another 'what is your favorite road song'...

[RatSnake]

I'm coming late to this thread as I performing holiday functions to insure that SWMBO didn't strike me down.

 

While I was raised a Catholic, I have had little to no contact with those folks, or any other religious group for that matter, for about 45 years, give or take.

 

The Jesuits that trained me to think during my high school years, did a pretty fair job of separating science and faith when discussing Evolution. Only in Religion class were we instructed to accept anything on faith. Even then, the basis was established in writings of the boss, either through the Apostles or the Pope.

 

Since it was a Catholic school, religion did slip into discussions in other disciplines, such as science, on occasion, but matters of faith were always labeled as such.

 

For example; We were asked to prove Evolution using the Scientific Method. That done, it was pointed out that, as Catholics, we had to BELIEVE, that, at some point in the process, Man became sentient and was endowed with an immortal soul, by their definition, became Man. This was to be accepted on faith as performed by G-d.

 

We were also told that we could Believe, even if we believed in the Big Bang, that G-d would have planned the outcome (Man created in his image) when he kicked off the whole thing. Once again, this was a matter of faith.

 

I am grateful to this day that I was taught to think and question and apply the Scientific Method. I was shown that I could choose what to believe or not

 

If someone wants to teach ID in a comparative religion class, I have absolutely no problem with that. In a science class, in a public school, OTOH, that's just absurd, for all the reasons presented by Mitch, Eebie and others above.

[DavidEBSmith]

"The public" is the people, and the people are the government. When a taking is for government use (whether open to the public or not) it is for "public use". For the government to seize private property and turn it over to someone else for private use just so the government can profit from it is an evil thing, especially when he who will profit can kick off the whole process.

 

Well, part of that is your opinion, to which you are entitled. But what is government "profit"? Are you only concerned about monetary profit, or intangible, indirect benefits (like job creation or beautification of blighted areas) as well?

 

In my job I often get fines imposed on people whose properties violate the building code, and some of these can be huge fines. Is that an evil thing? It's monetary profit for the government, but it discourages (or at least is meant to discourage, because some of them don't seem to learn) property owners from allowing their properties to become dangerous and dilapidated. There's monetary benefit (the money from fines conuterbalances the cost of operations) and indirect benefit (people don't die in bad buildings). Is one part evil, and one part good?

 

The Court might as well have said that governments can accept bribes - "Seize this property for me and I'll give you money" is what it amounts to. Even Alexander Hamilton would have a conniption fit over that.

 

Actually, Kelo explicitly said that out-and-out bribery makes it an unlawful taking. Beyond that, I'm not sure I understand the problem. The whole point of takings is that the government (and thereby the public) gets a benefit from doing it. If you're saying that it's OK if the public gets a direct benefit by taking property and using it for a park or road or office building, but not OK if the public gets an indirect benefit (in the form of lower taxes, safer streets, or a more livable environment) by letting a private party do the work, that's a distinction that seems fairly meaningless to me. And if the property owner gets fairly compensated (another issue, but beyond Kelo), and if the public gets a benefit, why should it matter whose hands the property ends up in? When you've sold your old motorcycle to somebody, should you care if they lovingly maintain it or if they ride off a cliff?

[Dave McReynolds]

Thought you'd be interested to know that as I was riding home this evening listening to NPR, they reported that the issue of whether intelligent design should be mentioned in public school curriculum was the #3 issue during 2005. According to the poll they quoted, 42% of Americans believe that God directly created the earth and the people on it, 18% of Americans believe that God exists, but either aren't sure what roll he played in creation or believe he just set things in motion, and 40% either don't believe in God or are agnostics, or at least aren't concerned with any roll God might have played in creation. The 18% tend to side with the 40% on the issue of whether public school science classes should teach creationism or ID as an alternative to evolution, yielding a majority who feel they shouldn't. According to NPR, these percentages haven't changed very much over the last 50 years or so.

 

Since a much greater majority than 58% of those who participated in our discussion (at least when it was still on point) didn't feel that ID should be taught in public school science classes, either this forum is not representative of the population at large, or more likely, I suspect, this forum is probably representative of the population at large, and those who felt otherwise chose to remain on the sidelines, for reasons of their own.

 

If my suspicion is correct, it once again demonstrates how an activist group manages to get listened to, sometimes even if they are a minority opinion (or in the case in point, seemingly reflecting a larger majority than in fact exists). You see this in your own statehouse and in congress, where representatives are generally more polarized than their constituents. I've seen it in business: "who in the heck came up with that policy?"

 

Not trying to be judgemental or political here; just making an observation on the verity of the "squeaky wheel" principal.

[smiller]

I suspect, this forum is probably representative of the population at large

 

I would suspect that the members of this forum are considerably better educated than the public at large.

[Bob Palin]

COLMES: What would be the other options if it's not God?

 

BEHE: Well, you know, other things that would strike us as, you know, as pretty exotic, you know. Space aliens or time travelers or something strange.

"Space aliens" seems a whole lot less strange to me than supernatural beings. (I don't believe time travel is possible but this thread has already wandered off too far so let's not talk about that)

[Pilgrim]

OK - I hereby declare victory. I'm taking my marbles and yours and going home.

 

Pilgrim

[DavidEBSmith]

Yah but you have to give me just compensation for my marbles. And my marbles are really nice marbles.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Should we teach anything to our kids as "fact"? Or are we kidding ourselves?

 

You're not the first person to ask that question.

 

In advance of my 2.5-hour flight back from warm, sunny Colorado (68F on Xmas day! ) to cold, dank Detroit yesterday, I bought a book:

 

The Science Wars: Debating Scientific Knowledge and Technology

 

It's a collection of essays and book excerpts detailing critiques of science from various quarters, along with rebuttals. During the flight I finished the first of four sections, a constructivist persepctive in which the basic argument is that scientific "facts" are not really facts at all. Rather:

 

• "facts" are social constructs with no particular connection to an external reality. Scientific "facts" are not "discovered" so much as "invented."
   
  
• scientists in their lab exercising the scientific method are fundamentally no different than witch doctors dancing around a fire. Lab "B" has trouble duplicating the results from Lab "A"? Clearly an error of method, say the folks in Lab "A." Or as the witch doctor says: "you didn't do the dance right."
   
  
• scientific culture is no different than any other political entity. Ideas rise and fall based entirely on who you can get to be allies on your side of the argument.
  

In this section considerable attention is devoted to a raging conflict between Thomas Hobbes and Robert Boyle that took place during the formative years of science, starting with an excerpt from Leviathan and the Air Pump. Boyle was a proponent of experimentation and observation, while Hobbes insisted solely on rational discourse. In the constructivist view, Hobbes was shunned by the scientific community purely for reasons of politics (although those purported reasons escape me right now); on further inspection, it seems clear that Hobbes was actually shunned because he had demonstrated himself to be something of an idiot in the field of mathematical proofs, and with such a reputation no one much wanted his input on other scientific matters.

 

Next section: feminist critiques of science. From the back cover of the book: "...some feminists see patriarchal bias in traditional scientific ideals of method and rationality..." This should be interesting. After that, we get into the postmodernist and conservative perspectives. I'll let you know how it ends.

[Pilgrim]

Should we teach anything to our kids as "fact"? Or are we kidding ourselves?

 

You're not the first person to ask that question.

. . .

I'll let you know how it ends.

 

Badly, no doubt.

 

Someone, I forget who, once observed that fact is just opinion solidified through pressure over time.

 

The biggest problem we have, IMHO, is that a lot of our facts aren't really - and we don't know exactly which ones those are.

 

But science and its rigorous method of approach provides us the most useful tool we have for discovery, whether it's of useful opinions, or facts.

 

Pilgrim

[DavidEBSmith]

"facts" are social constructs with no particular connection to an external reality.

 

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

[Timmer]

The biggest problem we have, IMHO, is that a lot of our facts aren't really - and we don't know exactly which ones those are.

 

But science and its rigorous method of approach provides us the most useful tool we have for discovery, whether it's of useful opinions, or facts.

 

Exactly!

 

So why not present both views, Intelligent Design and Evolution, with the pros & cons for both, and let the students - using scientific methodology - make up their own minds?

 

What kind of education are we providing students when we only present one view?

 

Of course the first step, if you really want to do it right, is to go back to basics and discuss the scientific method and understand it's strengths and weaknesses.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Of course the first step, if you really want to do it right, is to go back to basics and discuss the scientific method and understand it's strengths and weaknesses.

 

I'm pretty well versed in its strengths. What are its weaknesses, particularly when compared with any non-scientific method?

[sgendler]

I'm pretty well versed in its strengths. What are its weaknesses, particularly when compared with any non-scientific method?

 

It's weakness would appear to be that it can't find proof of the existence of the divine.

 

--sam

[smiller]

It's weakness would appear to be that it can't find proof of the existence of the divine.

 

Or to sum it up:

 

1. We know a divine intelligence exists ('cause it just has to, right?)

 

2. Science cannot prove the existence of a divine intelligence, and even provides hints to the contrary by disagreeing with some of the more established religious texts.

 

3. Ergo the scientific method must be flawed or incomplete.

 

Can't you guys follow simple logic?

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Or to sum it up:

 

1. We know a divine intelligence exists ('cause it just has to, right?)

 

2. Science cannot prove the existence of a divine intelligence, and even provides hints to the contrary by disagreeing with some of the more established religious texts.

 

3. Ergo the scientific method must be flawed or incomplete.

 

Can't you guys follow simple logic?

 

Some of the most intelligent human beings on the planet "know" that God exists, and obviously didn't prove it using the scientific method. Probably my most intelligent client, a physicist who worked with Oppenheimer, who has numerous patents and is a recognized expert in gamma rays, is also a devout Christian. I once had a personal discussion with him about the rather large share of his income that he donates to his church. The conclusion of the discussion was that he found no conflict with his work as a physicist and his Christian beliefs.

 

Is the scientific method "flawed or incomplete?" Flawed, probably, based on our historical record of overturning every single method of discovering the truth in recorded history, but I'll leave that to the future to decide. Maybe this is the first time in recorded history we've got it absolutely right!

 

Is it incomplete? Certainly! Most of the problems that have to be solved in life are not susceptible to the scientific method, either because there is no time or budget for rigorous testing, or it is just not the type of problem that would yeild to rigorous testing, regardless of how much time was available. These are examples of problems that have historically been better suited to an intuitive than a scientific approach (although limited aspects of these subjects have been approached scientifically, with mixed success): exploration of the earth, government, economics, psycology, business, war, peace, art, music, sex, law, athletics, and on and on.

 

The biggest limiting factor in the scientific method is that it expects too much of itself, as I think is exemplified in the previous posts. What I mean is that if a problem is not susceptible to the scientific method, it is ignored or thought to be unworthy of exploration by any other method, such as intuition, just trying things until something works, or accepting that someone might have a personal revelation by faith, which might be as real as the results of any scientific experiment.

 

As I have stated before, I respect the scientific method, and would join the efforts of those who try to keep it pure. However, as has been pointed out, it's just a hammer, and sometimes you need a screwdriver to do the job.

[russell_bynum]

The biggest weakness of the scientific method isn't the method at all...it is the "scientists" who are so closed-minded that they dismiss anything that they do not have the tools to explain.

 

I put "scientists" in quotes because I believe that a true scientist never really dismisses anything...and certainly not anything that they haven't even been able to examine yet.

[Bob Palin]

exploration of the earth, government, economics, psycology, business, war, peace, art, music, sex, law, athletics

Most of those are very suscepible to the scientific method:

 

exploration of the earth: totally scientific, satellite imaging and analysis of detectors everywhere

government, economics, business: more and more scientifc but very diffiucult since there are so many factors related to -

psychology: how can this not be scientific? But it is difficult as the subjects won't cooperate 8-)

war, peace, law: again more and more science involved both technically and pschologicaly

art, music: often quite scientific, I think it was Bach who wrote the equations for his music then his wife actually transcribed them into notes.

sex: saw that on TV once I think

athletics: very, very scientific, biomechanics, drugs etc. Everything is measured and analysed.

[Dave McReynolds]

Most of those are very suscepible to the scientific method:

 

I agree with the comments you made about my examples. Aspects of each of them are susceptible to scientific analysis (even sex: we got Viagra, didn't we?).

 

However, the point I was trying to make is that all the huge advances that have brought us to the place we are (including being here at all as a result of mostly unscientific sex), Columbus crossing the ocean blue in 1492, etc., were results of curious people who just wanted to "try" something, with science entering the picture later, as bits and pieces were discovered to be susceptible to scientific analysis.

 

Thanks for the interesting fact I didn't know about Bach. Is math a science, or is it a branch of philosophy?

[Bob Palin]

Is math a science, or is it a branch of philosophy?

The real parts are science, the imaginary parts are philosophy

[Aluminum_Butt]

It's weakness would appear to be that it can't find proof of the existence of the divine.

 

Or to sum it up:

 

1. We know a divine intelligence exists ('cause it just has to, right?)

 

2. Science cannot prove the existence of a divine intelligence, and even provides hints to the contrary by disagreeing with some of the more established religious texts.

 

3. Ergo the scientific method must be flawed or incomplete.

 

Can't you guys follow simple logic?

 

I almost hate to jump into this. There is no way for either "side" to truly convince the other - it is a matter of faith (or lack of faith). As for me, I'm a Christian. My faith has been built over a series of life events that left me with no personal doubt about the existence of God.

 

I look at things like the complexity of DNA, eyesight, celluar biology, etc. and have no problem believing that there is intelligent design involved. Though there are quality rebuttals, I personally think that the concept of "irreducible complexity" holds water - that evolution on its own cannot explain some of the systems that exist.

 

Evolution, as a theory, has some holes in it -- lack of transitional forms in fossil records, primarily. Carbon dating requires some significant assumptions relative to the state of the sample being measured, and has been shown to provide erratic results on occasion. As has been pointed out, there are some very smart people in this world who fall on the side of ID.

 

I can understand why those who do not share my faith are reluctant to embrace the possibility of ID. Evolution is the only way to remove God from the picture. But I wish that those who fight for evolution, and against ID, so strongly would at least acknowledge where there are issues with the theory, and be willing to present those in the classroom. Based on what I see in the popular media, evolution is pretty much presented as end-all, be-all fact, so I have to assume the same is true in the classroom. That's not good science.

[smiller]

Flawed, probably, based on our historical record of overturning every single method of discovering the truth in recorded history, but I'll leave that to the future to decide.

 

Once again, science is not flawed because its conclusions can be overturned based on new knowledge or new ways of looking at evidence. That in fact is one of the greatest strengths of science as a belief system.

 

I can understand why those who do not share my faith are reluctant to embrace the possibility of ID. Evolution is the only way to remove God from the picture.

 

I think even the strongest doubters of ID in this thread have all embraced at least the possibility of some sort of intelligent design, and as has been discussed the ideas behind evolution and intelligent design can easily coexist. The teaching of the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily remove God from the picture. Evolution theory may remove a literal interpretation of the Bible from the picture, though. Is that the problem?

[Aluminum_Butt]

I can understand why those who do not share my faith are reluctant to embrace the possibility of ID. Evolution is the only way to remove God from the picture.

 

I think even the strongest doubters of ID in this thread have all embraced at least the possibility of some sort of intelligent design, and as has been discussed the ideas behind evolution and intelligent design can easily coexist. The teaching of the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily remove God from the picture. Evolution theory may remove a literal interpretation of the Bible from the picture, though. Is that the problem?

 

I'm having trouble understanding this point, and I wondering if there needs to be some clarification of creation versus ID?

 

I can see where one could argue that Biblical creation is not literal, and that it can coexist with evolution. But while Biblical creation is one form of ID, not all ID is Biblical creation.

 

ID versus evolution is truly God versus no God. It you were to argue that evolution occured after the original design, that would still be ID. If you discount ID, you discount God (or some higher creator).

 

To be clear, though, I'm speaking philsophically. My own beliefs run toward Biblical creation.

[smiller]

ID versus evolution is truly God versus no God.

 

But why?

 

To recap what was discussed earlier in the thread, the teaching of evolution does not necessarily exclude a belief in God or intelligent design, it simply does not address the issue of who or what set the evolutionary process into motion. This is unknowable and as such is clearly a religious, or philosophical, or metaphysical issue. Those 'against' ID are merely saying that such a discussion belongs in those classes and not a science class. Furthermore, there is no logic in giving 'equal time' to ID in relation to evolution because evolution doesn't argue against the basic premise of ID in the first place.

[Boffin]

I think even the strongest doubters of ID in this thread have all embraced at least the possibility of some sort of intelligent design, and as has been discussed the ideas behind evolution and intelligent design can easily coexist. The teaching of the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily remove God from the picture. Evolution theory may remove a literal interpretation of the Bible from the picture, though. Is that the problem?

 

I cannot accept ID at all due to it's internal paradox. If we are so complex as to need a designer, the designer must be more complex than us. So, by extrapolation, that designer must have been designed, and the designer's designer designed, ad infenitum. The concept of ID simply does not stand up to any kind of critical thought.

 

Cya, Andy

[russell_bynum]

So, by extrapolation, that designer must have been designed, and the designer's designer designed, ad infenitum. The concept of ID simply does not stand up to any kind of critical thought.

 

Perhaps we're just unable to comprehend that the designer has always been here.

[smiller]

Perhaps we're just unable to comprehend that the designer has always been here.

 

Or of course the equally plausible scenario that the natural universe has always been here and is devoid of any designing entity.

[russell_bynum]

Perhaps we're just unable to comprehend that the designer has always been here.

 

Or of course the equally plausible scenario that the natural universe has always been here and is devoid of any designing entity.

 

Naturally.

[DavidEBSmith]

ID versus evolution is truly God versus no God. It you were to argue that evolution occured after the original design, that would still be ID. If you discount ID, you discount God (or some higher creator).

 

I think that there's confusion between what you might call the strong form and weak form of ID, and I think that the ID proponents count on this confusion.

 

The strong form of ID says that evolution cannot possibly explain certain complex life forms or structures. Therefore, some unknown entity (G-d, space aliens or time travellers) must necessarily have somehow tweaked the life forms or structures (through some unexplained mechanism) to cause them to come into existence. One day nothing has eyes, somebody waves a magic wand, and things have eyes.

 

The weak form of ID accepts that natural processes (including evolution) can explain complex life forms and structures without resort to supernatural tweaking. But the weak form also accepts that there may be a Creator who set up the natural processes, but doesn't interfere with them supernaturally.

 

To use an analogy, in the weak form of ID there is a Creator who writes the rules of the game, marks the field, selects the players, then goes up to the press box and watches the game. In the strong form of ID, the Creator does all that, then stands on the sidelines and every once in a while runs out on the field to block a punt or tackle a runner breaking away for a touchdown.

 

Based on my experience with scientists, I think those of them who are religious would believe in the weak form of ID. I've never met a physicist who would explain a subatomic particle bouncing off an atomic nucleus as "G-d reached down and pushed the particle aside", and I've never met a biologist who would explain a DNA mutation as "G-d reached down and broke the hydrogen bond right here."

 

The weak form of ID really doesn't belong in a science classroom. It's inconsequential to the resolution of the questions. If you understand natural processes, it doesn't affect that understanding and it doesn't matter (in a science classroom) if those processes were created or just happened. There are other places where you might appropriately consider that question.

 

Proponents of ID would like you to think that that's what ID is about, so they can add to their poll numbers, but it's not. The strong form of ID says that some unexplainable, unmeasurable entity is actively altering the laws of nature. It's bad science because it's a cheat - it tries to replace a testable and falsifiable theory (evolution) with one which is by definition untestable and unfalsifiable.

 

Strong ID is like kicking a field goal and having 4 points go up on the scoreboard. Why? The scorekeeper must have decided to change the value of a field goal. How? Don't know. When is a field goal worth 3 points or 4? Don't know. If we kick another field goal, what is it worth? Don't know. Can we ask the scorekeeper? No. Who is the scorekeeper? Don't know. What other rules did the scorekeeper change? Don't know.

 

Is that a fair game? Of course not. But that's how ID proponents play. Evolutionists play by the rules of science - create a hypothesis, test it against the data - but ID proponents say they don't have to play by the rules, they can make up rules as they go along, and they want making up rules as they go along to be part of the game.

 

One of the ironies of ID is that the proponents complain about gaps in the fossil record and point to that as evidence against evolution. So where is the evidence of ID? Who has seen eyes spontaneously form on a creature that doesn't have them? Who has seen a flipper turn into a wing? Nobody. There is no physical evidence, no data whatsoever, that supports ID and disproves evolution. The ID explanation is that ID happens outside the discoverable laws of nature. They don't have to come up with an explanation of the mechanism because it is by definition unexplainable.

 

Again, you need to read their Wedge Strategy. It is not an overstatment to say that the goal of ID proponents is to destroy materialism, rational thought, and the last 700 years of human progress, and replace it with their brand of theism, and ID is the leading edge of the wedge.

[smiller]

That is a typically excellent summation David, particularly the point concerning weak and strong ID. That is a critical nuance when one notes that 'many scientists believe in ID'.

 

Personally, I never fail to get a kick out of having someone tell me (not uncommon in these parts) that they don't believe in evolution because it doesn't make sense, or that the logic is full of holes, or that there is insufficient evidence, and then proceed to explain to me that a supernatural being created the Universe in seven days.

 

[BawdyMonk]

What a thread!

 

I feel like I've been dragged across the U.S.A. both physically and historically and been a fly on the wall of a hundred different living rooms, what I find incredible is the passion this discussion brings out in so many of you.

 

My view? I'm a modern (OK..middle aged ) European who doesn't like to mix religion with science or politics, from where I live it's all too easy to see the present day strife caused by mans interpretaion of religion, and just as easy to see that historically it's always caused problems, so I think that it's best to keep science and religion apart, and if you must teach religious theories in school you should teach several so that the next generation get a more balanced picture of mans relationship with God than most of my and previous generations were given.

[sgendler]

very, VERY nicely said, David. I'll admit to being prone to sarcasm and other forms of humour when attempting to debunk ID, but that's exactly what I would have wanted to say had I been able to take the argument seriously enough and had the intellectual chops to do so.

 

--sam

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

it is a matter of faith (or lack of faith)

.

 

I guess that sums it up. Faith based on something other than reason/evidence/logic is hard for me to wrap my brain around.

 

Though there are quality rebuttals, I personally think that the concept of "irreducible complexity" holds water - that evolution on its own cannot explain some of the systems that exist.

 

There have been biological systems that were held up as examples of irreducible complexity - which were later shown to be reducible. I suspect that will continue to be the case, i.e. examples of irreducible complexity will be presented, and will later be shown to not be irreducible.

 

Evolution, as a theory, has some holes in it -- lack of transitional forms in fossil records, primarily.

 

Frankly, it's amazing that we find any fossils of anything at all, let alone transitional forms; conditions for long-term preservation of biomass don't happen very often. That said, there are, in fact, several examples of transitional forms. Have a look.

 

Carbon dating requires some significant assumptions relative to the state of the sample being measured, and has been shown to provide erratic results on occasion.

 

There are indeed limits on its precision - but the occasional erratic result is not sufficient reason to abandon the whole technique. But given its limited application (can only measure up to 60K years old), even if were to discard carbon dating altogether, that would only be relevant to a very recent period in geological time; remember, we're talking about a fossil record that goes back several hundred million years.

[Dave McReynolds]

There are indeed limits on its precision - but the occasional erratic result is not sufficient reason to abandon the whole technique. But given its limited application (can only measure up to 60K years old), even if were to discard carbon dating altogether, that would only be relevant to a very recent period in geological time; remember, we're talking about a fossil record that goes back several hundred million years.

 

Try over 2 billion years.

[sideways]

So why not present both views, Intelligent Design and Evolution, with the pros & cons for both, and let the students - using scientific methodology - make up their own minds?

 

What kind of education are we providing students when we only present one view?

 

Timmer is not alone here, as this is the precise sentiment held by the President of the United States.

 

May I raise some important, but not often explicitly discussed, aspects to the national ID debate, and to this one?

 

1) What exactly are we, as a society, trying to accomplish with public education?

2) What time constraints (and as a consequence, curriculum restraints) exist, and how should that affect educational priorities?

2) What capacities of critical thinking do children in grades 1-12 possess, and how should this affect what information we choose to present to them ?

 

My own thoughts on the above:

Regarding #1, I’d say our goal should be to create, if nothing else, intellectually capable, responsible, and ethical citizens, who can help our nation maintain an even footing in world affairs of all sorts. Teaching a concept like ID, for which there is no scientific evidence (read the Dover opinion for an introduction to this truth) as though it is a valid “alternative” to the ever-more scientifically validated and practically useful theory of evolution, does not contribute to that goal. Instead, if large numbers of children are taught creationism (the REAL impetus of ID - again see the Dover opinion), our nation and its citizens will become even more scientifically and intellectually hobbled. (Incidentally, for any Fox news viewers who might see a "liberal conspiracy" in the Dover result, the judge in the case is a life-long conservative Republican appointed by President Bush.)

 

The goal of teaching social responsibility and personal ethical behavior to the nation’s children can be greatly facilitated by EFFECTIVE teaching of history and literature, as well as by the direct presentation of universally accepted ethical maxims. Notably, the most important ethical maxims for social cohesion (for example, don’t kill, steal, or lie), have been found across the earth for thousands of years, and have been followed by peoples who believed in hundreds of different gods (now ALMOST all discredited), or who believed in no gods at all. This indicates (at least to me) that it was human beings ourselves who, after finding that these maxims contributed to happiness and peace, began to promulgate the ethical tenets we all agree upon.

(Also, as an aside, I seem to recall some controversies in the past in which the teaching of ethics in public schools was, unless it was made specifically religious, fought by Christian parents. These parents complained about the secular basis of the instruction, and made much of the idea that such things should be taught at home, and that schools should stick to “the basics.”)

 

Regarding #2, if the constraints on our education system’s time, resources, were non-existent, then I guess we could teach all kinds of ideas in science class. Teachers and students could sort things out at their leisure. When teaching the “alternative” of ID, of course, we’d also have to include the ideas of the Raelians, and don’t forget the Scientologists, who have similar concepts of how the world began. Unfortunately, however, school time and resources are severely limited, so as a society we have to make very careful judgements about exactly what is taught, when, and to whom, because…

 

There is the issue of #3. Children, even high-schoolers, give great weight to what is taught them, explicitly or implicitly, by adults. They lack the experience, patience, and discipline required (and sadly, usually also the education), to sort out competing claims about very complex issues.

This fact, of course, is what is really at the root of the ID debate. The real agenda of those who push ID in the schools is that they want to maximize the number of credulous children exposed to their beliefs because it’s much harder to make a believer out of an adult well versed in science, history, and philosophy.

 

Last, but not least, I think Harleys are indeed the product of intelligent (human) design, just look at their market share!

And, 'sides, I really dig several Hawgs! On the other hand, I can't quite imagine this discussion taking place on any of the Harley forums I've visited!

[Pilgrim]

it is a matter of faith (or lack of faith)

.

 

I guess that sums it up. Faith based on something other than reason/evidence/logic is hard for me to wrap my brain around.

 

Mitch, I say this not to further the ID side of the argument, because it doesn't, nor to point fingers at anyone taking your side based on your grounds or any other. But it matters when it comes to why there is an argument.

 

Some fortunate people experience an epiphany. From Wikipedia: An epiphany is a sudden intuitive realization or comprehension of the essence or meaning of something. We use the word for all sorts of realizations now, of course, but it has a specific religious application too - the realization of God.

 

Those epiphanies take many forms for different people. Some people claim some sort of vision came with it. Others claim a flash of light or something otherwordly. For still others it is a simple (???!), sudden realization of truth, an "Aha!" moment.

 

They are not predictable. You cannot drive yourself to them (but conscious attempts at faith may sometimes bring them, though certainly not always - some of the devout never get them]. They may be triggered by an event, or not. There is no rational explanation for them. They cannot be found through research, and are certainly not material for a science class.

 

But if one comes to you, you recognize it. Suddenly you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, without need for explanation, that God exists, and he cares, and he's watching you, and if you let him, he's watching out for you. Faith no longer takes an effort, it becomes as much a part of your life as breathing. The words "Thy will be done" suddenly have new meaning when you pray them.

 

It changes your whole view of the universe, your life, and man. I can't begin to list the ways, but nothing you see is ever the same again. It doesn't invalidate science, God gave us that, too, as a useful tool, and the brain that leads us to our little discoveries. You do see, though, that while science is useful to us, it is no more than children playing in a sandbox.

 

Most of all, you want to tell others about it because it is such a joy and source of comfort, and to honor the Creator (call him what you will) whom you now know exists.

 

Maybe it's all an hallucination brought about by some weird connection of the synapses. Or maybe it's not - I don't think so. It's probably what evangelicals call being "born again". Whatever you call it, though, it's as real as being wet in the rain for you once it has happened.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

Lots of perceptions seem very real to the individual that experiences them but are by definition purely subjective. Science's crime is in trying to remove that subjectivity. Inexplicably there are those who somehow misconstrue that as a kind of weakness but in reality it is the very foundation of rational thought.

 

If an epiphany changes that view I think I will keep my electrolytes in balance so I will not have to experience one.

[russell_bynum]

Lots of perceptions seem very real to the individual that experiences them but are by definition purely subjective. Science's crime is in trying to remove that subjectivity. Inexplicably there are those who somehow misconstrue that as a kind of weakness but in reality it is the very foundation of rational thought.

 

If an epiphany changes that view I think I will keep my electrolytes in balance so I will not have to experience one.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[smiller]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

To clarify, I didn't mean to say that subjective intuition and scientific objectivity were mutually exclusive. I did mean to say that the former is subordinate to the latter.

[Aluminum_Butt]

I did mean to say that the former is subordinate to the latter.

Not to those of us with a belief in God.

[russell_bynum]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

To clarify, I didn't mean to say that subjective intuition and scientific objectivity were mutually exclusive. I did mean to say that the former is subordinate to the latter.

 

Hmm. I suppose that depends on the situation and what you're trying to accomplish.

[smiller]

Hmm. I suppose that depends on the situation and what you're trying to accomplish.

 

My purpose is to try to arrive at some objective truth. Subjective truth isn't of much value since it can be anything to anybody.

[Pilgrim]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

To clarify, I didn't mean to say that subjective intuition and scientific objectivity were mutually exclusive. I did mean to say that the former is subordinate to the latter.

 

That depends solely on what you are trying to achieve for yourself. If all you are after is scientific rationality to measure and understand things you can touch and see, then you are correct.

 

But as I said, when an epiphany takes place for you the universe assumes dimensions you can't imagine from a purely scientific point of view. You don't abandon science as a pursuit, you just understand its limited application in the scheme of things.

 

My, my; this thread assumes yet another direction.

Pilgrim