Heeb

03.26.08 at 11:03 am

“I’m pro free speech and actually don’t care if Denialism is taught alongside the Holocaust so that kids can learn to think for themselves.”

The Intelligent Design movement is a denialist movement; it doesn’t offer any actual science and the people in it have not done any demonstrable research. Instead, it (like Holocaust denialsm) cherry-picks from the relevant literature outtakes and out-of-context material to support its point of view.

There’s precious little time in any classroom to teach what we know to be the best explanation. Why waste any of it offering “alternatives?”

03.26.08 at 2:03 pm

Sad to see Stein relegate himself to “kook” status.

As far as offering “alternatives” in the classroom, I’m all for teaching another scientific theory for how life arose. They key word being “scientific”. I’m still waiting for one though.

The reason why the ID community hasn’t done any research is because there is NO RESEARCH TO DO because ID is not science. It makes no predictions, it tells us NOTHING about the natural world and is completely untestable. How can that be science?

It is not enough to hold up the things we have YET to explain within the theory of evolution and say “see, you can’t explain this, so that proves ID”....all the while discounting the VOLUMINOUS body of testable evidence which has been verified over the last 150 years which supports evolution science. (including the new sciences such as genetics and molecular biology which didn’t even exist at the time when Darwins predictions were made but have since created their own body of evidence)



Whether or not this should be be taught as curriculum has already been decided in Kitzmiller vs Dover in 2005. I quote Bush appointee, Judge John E. Jones’ conclusion:

“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”

Therefore, it should not be taught in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

03.26.08 at 4:03 pm

I’m not advocating for teaching ID in schools – I should have thought more about that sentence :) but, as Hassed put it, if there are alternate scientific theories, great. and if people want to do research to try to prove creationism, have at it. just don’t call something fact when there’s no evidence to back it up. and don’t produce “documentaries” that are just creative editing (this means you too, Michael Moor) As Richard Dawkins himself puts it, either find the facts or shut up about it.

03.26.08 at 9:03 pm

Shiksa I’m surprised to see you quote Dawkins on any matter involving factual evidence, his “God Delusion” was little more than the embittered rantings of a sad and lonely old man who believes in nothing, ‘facts’ in his little book were non-existent.
A closed mind is a terrible thing.
Besides, it’s like Thomas Aquinas said “Faith is not there to negate science, it’s there to take us to those places that science can’t reach” (or words to that effect).
It’s also a fundamental law of physics that you can’t create something out of nothing, you can’t spontaneously create matter…so we’re left to wonder exactly how the Universe came into being (what precipitated the Big Bang for example)...Science has yet to provide any answer for that question, Faith has provided an answer…whether you believe it or not.

03.27.08 at 12:03 am

“ Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
Mark Twain

03.27.08 at 2:03 pm

Puck, good idea, let’s give the biologists a break from religious whack-jobs and let the cosmologists deal with them for a while. LOL.

I can agree with Aquinas’ quote though. Of course I also believe that everything within the Universe from the smallest gravitational force to the full range of human emotions, all being real and all existing within this universe, can be quantified scientifically.

Just as matter cannot be created from nothing, so can nothing exist which cannot be quantified. If it’s there, it can be measured and explained.

For me, there is no use to anything which denies, impedes or in any way seeks to distract humans from understanding the universe because how can you glean any true meaning if the suppostions about your place within it are false.

The mystics and true believers of the world have been holding the reigns far too long.

03.27.08 at 9:03 pm

Have to respectfully disagree with you there Hesed.
It may be that the measurement and explanation of some things are simply beyond our abilities for now, look at dark matter for example.
A blind belief in science (given their propensity for revising their own work) seems little different to a blind adherence to a book of faith.
Scientists once told us the world was flat, and they were wrong. Now they tell us that G-d doesn’t exist…well, until they can prove it…I’ll stick with faith.
If I’m wrong and I die then there’s just oblivion, no loss there…if I’m right…I’ll send you a postcard ;)

03.28.08 at 3:03 pm

It is not an uncommon arguement by true believers to make the incorrect analogy between science and faith. Scientific naturalism is not a belief system. Science makes factual assertions based on what can be proven. Faith, the very defintion of the word, is exactly the opposite. It is based on beliefs which are inherently beyond proof.

I view the revisions within science as an indication of its antithetical relationship to religion. Anyone bringing testable proof is capable of revising what is accepted fact about the natural world, that’s why science is always revising, always building upon itself, never stagnant. Nothing is sacred. When a new idea challenges an older idea, it isn’t science being whimsical, it’s because we have discovered someting new. It isn’t the Pope waking up one morning and saying, “OK, no more purgatory”.

I do not BELIEVE in science. I factually assert that the scientific method, when applied to questions pertaining to natural phenomenon bears adequate explanations which negate any “supernatural” causation. Given these observations and all their testable predictions (and given enough time) the scientific method is capable of explaining all phenomenom in the universe. Whether it will be humans who do it is the only thing which is uncertain.

Your last post needs some factual corrections.

1. Scientists of the time, claiming the world was flat, did so based on biblical dogma in a time when so called “science” was nothing more than an arm of the church. Science wasn’t even science until Galileo proposed methodology. The church imprisoned him and later placed him under house arrest and banned everything he did for his trouble. That was back in 1633. In 1992 to Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how it was all handled…359 years later.

2. Science does not claim that there is no God, it asserts that at up to this point there is no testable proof of one.

You say:

“If I’m wrong and I die then there’s just oblivion, no loss there…if I’m right…I’ll send you a postcard”

So you dont actually believe in God, you’re just hedging your bets? If you’re just hedging your bets, why not do it based on the facts instead of what just makes you feel good?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan

03.30.08 at 3:03 pm

A response to Hesed.

I will accept that you believe what you say about science. You make a very major mistake, however, when you refer to non-Jewish, that is to say, non or anti-Torah sources to reference and support your suppositions and opinions about “Faith”.

I have confidence in the methodology of science and, also, my belief in Torah, and the faith that flows from that commitment to Torah and Torah values.

Arguing against “Faith” or disparaging “Faith” by citing or alluding to Christian doctrine or a Christian narrative has nothing to do with Jews.

There is no conflict between science and Torah.

The Divine revelation to the Jewish people in Sinai 3320 years ago is an historical event with eyewitness verification and a written record of what happened. There were 3 million or more people there. They all saw it.

Very much could be said.

Intelligent Design seems to be a Christian based effort. It has nothing to do with the adherence to Torah.

Let us have a discussion of the relationship of science to Torah.

04.01.08 at 1:04 pm

I didn’t say anything about about Judaism or the Torah. I only said that the nature of faith is inherently untestable by scientific standards (that’s why its called “faith”)....thus it should stay out of science. If we adopted the criteria for verifying scientific facts the same way we went about asserting our beliefs in faith then science wouldn’t get very far, would it?

People can “believe” whatever they they want. If clinging to some story for the purpose of asthetics has value to them, fine…BUT THAT DON’T MAKE THE STORY TRUE.

I think that there is something to be learned from systems of belief. They aren’t completely useless. Stories can provide perspective, teach moral lessons. Hell, Moby Dick taught me about the perils of having an over-developed sense of revenge, but should I believe that there is an malignant white whale seeking to bite my leg off when I go swimming in the ocean? When I need a particular fact about the behavior of Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus I dont go to Herman Melville, I go to a marine biologist.