Seriously! He thinks intelligent design means that animals INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED THEMSELVES by, as far as I can tell, forcing their genes to mutate in particular directions (did you know that you could do this? News to me!). It’s like Lamarkism but head-slappingly stupid.
But hey, he’s a moderate independant, so he must have a balanced, sane view, right?
Zebra Sha Sha
One time, a Christian friend of mine despite him being very reactionary, when asked “do you believe in evolution” responded with “let’s just say there is no way I came from bacteria.”
Fundamentalists want to believe in creationism (aka Intelligent Design) because:
I really have to disagree with you on this point! Teaching that science is an opinion is just wrong, it flys in the face of what science is about at its core; Gallileo, among others, sought to remove his own beliefs from his work in a struggle for objectivity.
You may believe that fundamentalists are suffering from a disease, like alcoholism or
:dubious: homosexuality :dubious: --I’ll sidestep that can of worms, TYVM-- but I think you’re building a proverbial straw man.
Fundamentalists, among others, want to believe in creation because they do believe in creation. It’s their faith and their right. (I might point out that creation is not an idea that can be disproven.) Saying a belief in creation (not the same as ID IMHO) “puts “the Lord™” into the scheme of things” is akin to saying one puts on suntan lotion is order to put “The Sun™” into the scheme of things. I suspect that for some, belief in evolution is a means to deny an omnipotent diety. But the point is not to advance atheism, it is to maintain the objective base of science.
As for truth… it is subjective by nature. I wouldn’t mind if facts were eliminated from the curriculum; just present the evidence in an unbiased way whenever possible.
So far, so good (although you do know that Galileo was a devout Catholic, right?)
Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism already indicates your POV.
A. Sure, it’s anybody’s right to believe any foolishness they please, but that doesn’t make that brand of foolishness acceptable subject matter in a science classroom.
B. Science can’t address the existence of God, but it can disprove claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Creationism doesn’t work as an adequate explanation for the inheritance of genes in a population.
That’s a confusing paragraph, but if you support the presentation of evidence (AKA facts) in a science classroom, then you must approve of evolution being taught, and not creationism, which is a religious doctrine that belongs in church, not school. You’re quite right that science cannot disprove God, and in fact many scientists who accept evolution are religious people who believe that practicing their discipline is a tribute to their Creator.
Actually, most people believe in a god because it makes them feel better and live more productively and successfully. It’s a belief structure that provides a mechanism for avoiding debilitating worry, fear and uncertainty.
Oddly enough, this happened in the opposite direction with me. I was going through one of the inevitable “crises of faith” that bridged my Southern Baptist upbringing and my eventual comfort with atheism. At the same time, I had a great section on evolution in my tenth-grade biology class, with one of my favorite teachers.
One of my friends came from one of those ultra-fundie families, the type who never met a conspiracy theory they didn’t like, who pulled their daughter out of her Current Events class because the Newsweek they read was a hedonistic secular rag, who probably think Falwell and Robertson are a couple of pansy-ass liberals. He was raising all the usual BS objections, and between my crisis of faith and my usual dose of teenage rebellion, I joined in.
The teacher, I think, recognized it for what it was–my identity crisis and his parroting of the BS he had been hearing at home for fifteen years–so he just kind of tolerated it.
Well geez I did not mean to open up the proverbial can of worms when I mentioned homosexauality and alcoholism. I was not equating the two nor do I think they are some sort of abnormality, sin, offense to God, etc. (Hey I’m an atheist). My apologies to any folks who may have felt offended.
I think that evolution is science fact and people (fundamentalists) who do not want to face that are (IMHO) in denial. The Sun has a mass of 2 x 10[sup]33[/sup] grams. That doesn;t seem to bother the “fundies”. Why? Even if the Bible stated the Sun “weighed” 3 pounds, it doesn’t force them to believe that we came from lower life forms. That really seems to stick in their “craw”.
Darn I forgot to list a third reason (no it is NOT 3) Hi OPal), why fundies like to embrace creationism, the Bible, etc - laziness.
Yeah science requires you to know calculus, physics, chemistry, etc. So the “easy” way out is to say ‘The Bible says the Lord did it’ - and no tough thinking required.
Awwww c’mon, he must have been up all night finishing “Big Daddy” to prepare for that essay.
That kind of movie is cool. I was referring to fiction movies, not documentaries. Those that don’t appear to have much to do with the subject matter.
Sure. But they’ll get real confused about response 3. 
I know something about his faith, but not much. I was actually thinking in terms of his belief about the Earth going around the sun and his quest for proof beyond the fact that Jupiter had moons. (I believe he found his proof in the crescent appearance of Venus.)
Not sure if that is directed at me or no… I was responding to a previous post and intended the quote to make that clear.
If it helps to clarify, which I think reading the quoted post would help with as well, I don’t think fundamentalists believe in creation as a means to bring the Lord into the picture. The belief in an omnipotent diety precedes the belief in creationism. (Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is just goofy.)
Yes I do believe in teaching evolution. I further believe that teaching evolution in a way that undermines the ideas behind it (by teaching it as ‘only a theory’ or as science fiction e.g.) is worse than not teaching anything at all.
However, I would not rule out creationism in a classroom, religious or not… but that’s fodder for a whole new thread and this one, I now see, is almost 24 hours stale…
Students right now–hell, many adults, too-- don’t know how to discriminate between reason and faith. They don’t know that seeing everything through the filter of either viewpoint is inappropriate and invalid. Creationists don’t understand that the quickest way to kill the power of God would be, IMHO, to prove scientifically that S/he exists. And evolutionists don’t see that science’s blind pursuit of knowledge is seen as cold comfort, almost a threat, to that part of the human psyche who is awed, almost afraid of the simple fact of our existence. And what is lost in all of this is the ability of students to understand how to appreciate and apply these two different abstractions to comprehend our existence.
I’m sorry-I forgot who posted this, but to me, that’s it in a nutshell. I think people are afraid of science b/c it can debunk mysteries–not realizing that faith is the biggest mystery of all.
I also think that people are overwhelmed by the complexity of the world (natural and man made) and are looking for comfort–not truth. Some of us find comfort in the knowable, others are content with mystery. The irony to me is the evangelicals have always struck me as the ones most UN-comfortable with mystery and the unknowable. They essentially want to take matters of faith and make them concrete, while ignoring the actual factuals all around them…
I’ve got the local cable news channel on right now-there’s a big debate about teaching intelligent design in the schools around here.
It seems they’re considering teaching ID here in Pennsylvania schools. Fuck.
Actually if the student notes on their test, “Question 3) in invalid because of the misuse of the “hi Opal” phrase. “Hi Opal” should only be used as number 3 on a list that contains only two other list objects. Opal stated that 2 object list is not a true list, thus a third object (in this case “Hi Opal”) must be inserted to make it a true list. If your list has 3 or more objects, the Opal Rule does not apply.” that student should get an automatic A on the exam for being a loyal SD reader.
As to the OP, here in Kansas they are having open discussions on adding ID to the science cirriculum. Unfortunately I see the idiot fundies winning this one. Makes me glad I don’t have kids who have to listen to this crap.
True in its original context, but has since been extended to occupy position 3 on lists with more than 3 items.
However, I agree the student should get an A.