An Australian response to Intelligent Design

[marcus]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-design-a-faith/2005/10/28/1130400365346.html

October 29, 2005

---quote---
Kosky rules intelligent design a faith

Victoria's government schools will treat intelligent design as a religious faith, not science, Education Minister Lynne Kosky has ruled.

In her first statement on the subject, Ms Kosky reaffirmed the principle that government schools were secular and did not promote any religion.

She said the two areas in which religion could be discussed were optional religious education lessons and VCE studies comparing religions.

"In line with the above principles, schools can decide whether to offer intelligent design as part of religious instruction," Ms Kosky said. "Parents will be given the opportunity to withdraw their child from the lesson." ...

...Last week a coalition representing 70,000 Australian scientists and teachers likened it to the flat-earth theory.
---endquote---

 

[pattylou]

Good on you!

For a laugh go here:

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92062/

 

[Moonbear]

Woo hoo! That's wonderful news. At least Australian educators have their heads screwed on straight.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Marcus, nice to know that at least Australians have the sense to call it what it is.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hmm... looks like these aussies need to go look up the definition for 'religion'.

 

[mattmns]

Sweet, awesome news!

 

[Danger]

Good on ya, mate! I hoist a Foster's to your government.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Kosky rules intelligent design a faith

Thank GOD (or whatever) that humanity is blessed with the pure and pristine practice of non-faith offered by science. Because, afterall, if anyone ever found a single science type practicing any sort of blind faith whatsoever, then that would TOTALLY discredit the entire field of science (right?).

So let's all join together in a secular prayer to the omnipotent Mechanics God and condemn the obviously mindless opposition to scientific speculations (what else could anyone be BUT mindless if they don't buy science theories 100%?).

 

[JamesU]

so...what's intelingent design?

 

[Evo]

Thank GOD (or whatever) that humanity is blessed with the pure and pristine practice of non-faith offered by science. Because, afterall, if anyone ever found a single science type practicing any sort of blind faith whatsoever, then that would TOTALLY discredit the entire field of science (right?).
So let's all join together in a secular prayer to the omnipotent Mechanics God and condemn the obviously mindless opposition to scientific speculations (what else could anyone be BUT mindless if they don't buy science theories 100%?).

To me, put in it's simplest form, science is based on facts and observation, while religion is based on faith and belief. Science should not intrude upon religion and religion should not intrude upon science.

Intelligent design is an attempt to intrude religion upon science.

 

[Les Sleeth]

To me, put in it's simplest form, science is based on facts and observation, while religion is based on faith and belief. Science should not intrude upon religion and religion should not intrude upon science.
Intelligent design is an attempt to intrude religion upon science.

It isn't that I think intelligent design is right! It's that I don't think anyone knows the answer, yet the mechanists incessantly condescend around here.

If you were someone like me, who really doesn't care what the answer turns out to be as long as it makes sense, then you might see how hypocritical it seems for the science side to be outraged at ID's attempts to get in the creation-theory game. There are HUGE gaps in physicalist theory, which is every bit as glossed over with blind faith theories as on the ID side.

That and that alone is the reason for my sarcasm. The pot calling the kettle black.

 

[ZapperZ]

It isn't that I think intelligent design is right! It's that I don't think anyone knows the answer, yet the mechanists incessantly condescend around here.
If you were someone like me, who really doesn't care what the answer turns out to be as long as it makes sense,

And you believe that what "makes sense" to you is a valid measuring stick?

Zz.

 

[Pengwuino]

so...what's intelingent design?

Well its certainly not a religion. That's like saying creationism is religion. I think the idea is as absurd as that ruling saying atheism is a religion. It's not a religion, its not a scientic theory, and should not be labeled as either.

 

[Danger]

My father, who was a minister for 58 years, defined religion as "one's total response to the whole of life". Whether or not that fits the opinion of any particular dictionary, it came from an expert on the subject (Masters in Religious Studies from McGill). By it, science and atheism are both religions. ID just happens to be the belief of pointedly unscientific denominations.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hmm sounds like communism. No one really seems to have a definition for it and no one can agree on what it really is in detail.

 

[Moonbear]

Well its certainly not a religion. That's like saying creationism is religion. I think the idea is as absurd as that ruling saying atheism is a religion. It's not a religion, its not a scientic theory, and should not be labeled as either.

Not a religion, but a religious belief. There is no evidence to support ID, just belief.

 

[Pengwuino]

Not a religion, but a religious belief. There is no evidence to support ID, just belief.

Thus, not a religion, thank you.

 

[Moonbear]

It isn't that I think intelligent design is right! It's that I don't think anyone knows the answer, yet the mechanists incessantly condescend around here.

What's condescending about calling it like it is? ID is NOT a scientific theory; there is no actual evidence to support it. Those who believe it believe based on faith, not evidence or facts. Evolution has the weight of evidence backing it. That's why it makes good sense to teach ID as part of religious or faith-based studies and evolution as part of science studies.

 

[Evo]

It isn't that I think intelligent design is right! It's that I don't think anyone knows the answer, yet the mechanists incessantly condescend around here.
If you were someone like me, who really doesn't care what the answer turns out to be as long as it makes sense, then you might see how hypocritical it seems for the science side to be outraged at ID's attempts to get in the creation-theory game. There are HUGE gaps in physicalist theory, which is every bit as glossed over with blind faith theories as on the ID side.
That and that alone is the reason for my sarcasm. The pot calling the kettle black.

Les, are you aware of what the stated goals are of the ID proponents?

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

You do know that "The Wedge Strategy" is from the Discovery Institute, the inventors of Intelligent Design.

Did you really not know about this?

 

[Moonbear]

Thus, not a religion, thank you.

Nobody said it was a religion, so what's your point? The article said "religious faith", and the quote from the education minister said it would be taught as part of "religious instruction," he didn't say it was going to be dubbed a religion.

 

[Pengwuino]

Nobody said it was a religion, so what's your point? The article said "religious faith", and the quote from the education minister said it would be taught as part of "religious instruction," he didn't say it was going to be dubbed a religion.

Obviously I am drunk because i swear i saw someone say its a religion.

 

[Les Sleeth]

And you believe that what "makes sense" to you is a valid measuring stick?

Given our contentious past, how about we start out assuming the other has legitimate points to make?

My standards for making sense, I believe, are the same as yours. If not, then how did we each get certified in our respective fields of study? Where we likely differ is what we accept as evidence. Review my logic, and how I consistently attempt to support my assertions with evidence, and I would think you’d appreciate my devotion to scholarship and logic despite the fact that we don’t agree on the underlying nature of the universe.

I claim I am not committed to any sort of description of reality other than making sense. But I also contend that most around here, including you, are pre-committed. I claim, and please correct me if I am wrong, that some people are only willing to accept and propose physical factors as the basis of reality. Also, they are so committed to physical-only descriptions they propose theories as “most likely” which are both unsupported by sufficient evidence and don’t really make sense.

My objective isn’t to undermine faith in what science actually has achieved, and can achieve. I challenge claims that aren’t supported by evidence. It seems to me that, as a scientist, you would appreciate that.

 

[Moonbear]

Obviously I am drunk because i swear i saw someone say its a religion.

Maybe it was just your initial interpretation of the term "religious faith." That could be taken as synonymous with religion, but not necessarily.

 

[Moonbear]

My objective isn’t to undermine faith in what science actually has achieved, and can achieve. I challenge claims that aren’t supported by evidence. It seems to me that, as a scientist, you would appreciate that.

And that is why scientists challenge ID as non-science; it isn't supported by evidence.

 

[Pengwuino]

Maybe it was just your initial interpretation of the term "religious faith." That could be taken as synonymous with religion, but not necessarily.

No I am pretty sure i saw religion...

 

[Les Sleeth]

What's condescending about calling it like it is? ID is NOT a scientific theory; there is no actual evidence to support it. Those who believe it believe based on faith, not evidence or facts. Evolution has the weight of evidence backing it. That's why it makes good sense to teach ID as part of religious or faith-based studies and evolution as part of science studies.

Well, I don't think you are ever going to see this but. . . Why do you keep assuming a scientific theory is the only thing needed here?

And talk about faith, of the blind variety, I don't think you are very open to the fact that natural selection and genetic variation doesn't cut it as the creator of all life forms, yet don't you believe it should be taught to our children as "most likely"? What's wrong with teaching that SOME physicalist types think mechanical evolution MAY explain it all one day?

It is very difficult to reason with "believers" in any religion, whether of the science variety or the spiritual variety. Afterall, you have the inside track to truth don't you? So, aren't you justified in judging everything in relation to your assumed TRUTH?

 

[Les Sleeth]

And that is why scientists challenge ID as non-science; it isn't supported by evidence.

Yep, since science is the ONLY avenue to truth, then all non-science is automatically deemed untruth. Isn't that your position?

 

[Moonbear]

Well, I don't think you are ever going to see this but. . . Why do you keep assuming a scientific theory is the only thing needed here?

Because a FACT based theory is needed, and the scientific theory is the only one based on FACTS. When you can provide evidence that contradicts evolution, not just some guesses as to what might be missing, but actually provides hard evidence it is wrong, then the scientific community will be all ears; you might even win a Nobel Prize, but until you can prove it wrong, or propose an alternate theory that fits with ALL the evidence that currently has been gathered, which supports evolution, it still stands as the ONLY theory we have that explains what is observed. Intelligent Design is NOT an alternative and is little more than a crackpot idea that fails to address the vast amount of evidence contrary to it. And doesn't it seem strange to you to come to a site dedicated to discussion of science and ask why we want to discuss science?

And talk about faith, of the blind variety, I don't think you are very open to the fact that natural selection and genetic variation doesn't cut it as the creator of all life forms, yet don't you believe it should be taught to our children as "most likely"?

Nope, that just means you don't understand what evolution and natural selection mean. It has ZERO to do with the origin of life. How many times do we have to say this over and again in all of the threads on evolution at PF to get this point across? Evolution is about what has happened AFTER life began, and continues to happen today. The origin of life on Earth is NOT part of the theory, never has been, never will be. That is an entirely different, and quite open question.

 

[Moonbear]

Yep, since science is the ONLY avenue to truth, then all non-science is automatically deemed untruth. Isn't that your position?

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. If you don't want to discuss science, there are forums all over the internet NOT dedicated to science discussion. I am here because I wish to talk science. This thread addresses the decision to not teach intelligent design as part of the SCIENCE curriculum. It even suggested an alternative place to teach it. You may think there's some other place in the curriculum to teach it other than religious studies, but the bottom line is that it is NOT SCIENCE, and it doesn't seem you are trying to argue it is, thus I don't know what the purpose of your antagonism is here, and it's not related to the topic at hand.

 

[moose]

ID can't be proven or even close to it. That's it. People believe it, because that is what their religion believes. However, it cannot be proven. Why do we keep discussing this?

 

[cronxeh]

Ripper, you little, mate! Excuse the pommy ocker pollys, ye be all piker swagmen- they not the full quid. Them creationists got kangaroos loose in the top paddock

 

[Skyhunter]

Good on you!
For a laugh go here:
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92062/

And then, he attributed his spotty, selective and just plain weird memory to his OxyContin addiction.

Thank you pattylou. Now I finally understand why Rush Limbaugh has a spotty, selective, and just plain weird memory.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. If you don't want to discuss science, there are forums all over the internet NOT dedicated to science discussion.

What's that Moonbear, might makes right? I've been disputing scientism excesses long before you got here, so why not just make your case rather than refer me to some non-science site.

I am here because I wish to talk science.

You get to insist on that in biology or some other science forum, not here. Where do you get off demanding the world talks science in every setting? Again, you are proving my claim that you assume a priori that science is the only epistomologically viable avenue.

This thread addresses the decision to not teach intelligent design as part of the SCIENCE curriculum.

That's right, but you also didn't acknowlege my objection did you? It is that the science gurus scream like stuck pigs that someone isn't obeying their rules. Yet, they haven't yet made their case that science has the right to offer the "most likely" theory to our kids! So you are outraged at ID's lack of proof, but you don't mind physicalist theorists pushing their theories as most likely.

It even suggested an alternative place to teach it. You may think there's some other place in the curriculum to teach it other than religious studies, but the bottom line is that it is NOT SCIENCE, and it doesn't seem you are trying to argue it is, thus I don't know what the purpose of your antagonism is here, and it's not related to the topic at hand.

My resistance is to the attitude of this thread. It is like science has the better answer. Yet, science doesn't yet have the answer. What happens is, the science types assert in textbooks to our kids that natural selection-genetic variation is the "most likely" cause of all evolution, yet the only thing that can actually be observed is superficial adjustments through those mechanisms.

I have nothing to say about the validity of ID in this thread. I am objecting to the hypocracy of ridiculing the lack of evidence behind ID, while scientism devotees do EXACTLY the same thing when they push their unproven theories.

 

[Gokul43201]

Les, this discussion is only about whether or not ID should be taught in SCIENCE CLASS.

The proponents of ID want it to be. The Govt. of Victoria doesn't. Who do you think is right ?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les, this discussion is only about whether or not ID should be taught in SCIENCE CLASS.

The proponents of ID want it to be. The Govt. of Victoria doesn't. Who do you think is right ?

Gokul, I understand the formal theme. Since there isn't enough room to make my case here, I probably shouldn't have said anything.

However . . .

What I find a turn off is all the science devotees gushing with relief that something so "unscientific" as ID has been eliminated from yet another school district's curriculum. Praise the Lord, save our children from religious indoctrination so we can replace that with scientific indoctrination. Yep, much much better!

I don't want ID taught as science. But what justifies science being taught as able to answer everything? And despite the denials everyone makes, that is exactly what the scientism devotees are doing. That hypocrisy (finally spelled it right) is nauseating.

Do you think I am sticking up for ID? No freakin' way. I am firing torpedos at the next bucket of dogma waiting in line to indoctrinate the masses with their belief system.

What I am advocating is NO belief system, but rather teaching people how to evaluate and think free of the dogmatic constraints belief systems impose on believers.